Original sin

[Katzpur]

How does giving a child a gift take away their free will?

The gift is already his. Christ gave it to him at birth.

Especially if that child can reject it later on?

How can you reject a promise somebody else made for you.

I guess those Evil Jews took away thier infants free will by covenanting them to Yahweh in circumcision.! If you use your own logic then you yourself would be in trouble.

I thought we were talking about original sin here.

Why do you Mormons proxy baptize the dead non-Mormons in your temples?

For the same reason the early Christians did.

Doesn't that take away free will??

How on earth could it do that?

 

[Quiddity]

Not at all... I realize it's the choice of a parent how to raise their children. I also know enough of the idea behind it to know that it's supposed to represent something permanent. IMO, saying that baptism doesn't really matter if the kid decides not to be Catholic minimizes the importance of baptism.

How so? It would be like God giving children a third arm (that would be cool wouldn't it?) and they later decide not to use the third arm.

I wish I could remember the verse, but I recall something in the Gospels where Jesus is quoted as saying that those who follow Him and then turn away will receive a worse fate than those who had never followed Him at all.

Hell is hell...not sure what you're talking about. I do recall it saying that it would have been better then they didn't believe, but I'm not sure about "worse fate" part. Can't imagine anything being worse then Hell.

It just seems like there's a reversal of roles going on here: normally, it's the Christian who tells the non-Christian that what matters will be made apparent in the hereafter, and the opinion that counts most is God's. In this case, it seems to me like you and athanasius are downplaying the hereafter and God, and I wonder why.

You lost me here.

If you think that baptism actually has any effect, then there's a decision that's being made for the child. I can see how, in the Catholic contex, the idea of depriving my child of this choice of faith would be a reasonable one, just as I would consider depriving my child of the choice of what to have for dinner would be reasonable (especially if the child's choice would be marshmallows). Still, though, if baptism matters at all, you are making a decision for the child... even if you consider it to be a positive one.

And this is wrong because......

Wouldn't any good parent do what is best for the child?

 

[Katzpur]

I’d show you 1st century Christians that believe otherwise, but anytime I do use history it’s discarded as “Apostasy”. I used to think it could at least make a difference when I was told that you guys would be open to 1st century writings. But really what you guys meant was “Show us a 1st century writings that conform to our teachings”. God forbid I actually find a 1st century Christian who believed in infant baptism. What would you make of that?

Well, it would make a difference who that first century Christian was. If it was an Apostle, I would give it serious consideration. If it wasn't, I'd have to know more about the person to know whether he was speaking authoritatively or not.

What I don’t get is how LDS can believe Adam's transgression affected the human race, inclined us to sin and yet we are still born in a righteous state? So which is it? I just don’t get this. Perhaps you can explain. Especially since you guys also believe that baptism is the entering into a relationship with Christ. Which is of course necessary.

There is a difference between being inclined to sin and sinning. We are human beings and have human frailties, but until a person has the maturity and understanding to be able to discern between good and evil, he cannot sin. Once he has reached a point where he can know right from wrong, can understand the need for Christ's Atonement, and can repent of his sins, he can make a commitment to change his life. I don't think that's a difficult concept at all.

You don’t have to. The least you can do is tell me why you think such a clear parallel was used. Or......you can ignore it and I'll just leave it for you consideration. [/quote}I don't see circumcision as having anything to do with original sin; I see baptism of infants as having everything to do with individual sin.

No, but you do believe this:

As a result of Adam's Fall, each of us is subject to the natural conditions of mortality. In a nutshell, this means that we are inclined to be sinful.

Which is all we are saying. I’d be surprised if you’ve heard any catholic say an infant or small child has committed any sin.

I don't know that I've ever heard a Catholic say that an infant has committed a sin, but I have heard many Catholics say that the child must be baptised in order to be absolved of Adam's sins. What I don't understand is why anyone would have to be absolved of someone else's sin. If Jesus' Atonement paid for Adam's sin, why are millions of children still being in some way held accountable for it today?

BTW, it is bad theology to form one's beliefs on "comfort". If I did base it off comfort, I'd tell you that all the unbaptized are going to heaven. But we don't believe that. And we also don't believe they are all going to Hell. As I said, we just don't know.

None of my beliefs are based on comfort, Victor, but many are comforting nonetheless.

If God doesn’t need to make exceptions, perhaps you can point me to when the thief on the cross was immersed for the remission of his sins?

I couldn't possibly know when this took place, but I do know that someone at some time was or will be baptized on his behalf prior to the Last Judgment. God has commanded us to be baptized and He will provide a way for each of us to obey this commandment. If He didn't care one way or the other, He wouldn't have given us the commandment in the first place.

I actually agree that paradise doesn’t mean heaven for very similar reasons as yours. The difference is that we don’t believe that once someone has reached paradise (which means something different to us then you guys) that baptism is needed. What purpose would it serve? You’re already in paradise!

You're in Paradise, but you're not in Heaven, and won't be until the Last Judgment. You can get into Heaven whether you are baptized or not, but your potential to progress once there will be impacted by your obedience to God's commandments.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How so? It would be like God giving children a third arm (that would be cool wouldn't it?) and they later decide not to use the third arm.

A third arm would be cool, but the kid might get annoyed later at the prospect of having all his suit jackets custom-made.

Hell is hell...not sure what you're talking about. I do recall it saying that it would have been better then they didn't believe, but I'm not sure about "worse fate" part. Can't imagine anything being worse then Hell.

I've got a note in the margin of one of my Bibles... but unfortunately, it's the old "paper" kind, so it's a bit more onerous to search through; I'll have to get back to you with chapter and verse.

You lost me here.

Saying "what does baptism matter if you don't believe in it anyway?" implies that baptism has no importance other than the importance that the baptized individual gives to it. I think this isn't exactly the official Catholic viewpoint, is it?

And this is wrong because......

Wouldn't any good parent do what is best for the child?

In the Catholic context, it's not wrong. However, baptism being a good idea is wrapped up in acceptance of a number of Catholic (specifically) and Christian (generally) beliefs. Personally, I think there are some ideas inherent in baptism and original sin that could be considered rather unhealthy*... unless they're correct.



*e.g. that a newborn baby is so inherently evil that he or she must be "fixed", otherwise a good, just and perfect God would be completely right to make the child suffer for all eternity if he or she were to die.

 

[Quiddity]

A third arm would be cool, but the kid might get annoyed later at the prospect of having all his suit jackets custom-made.

I think he'd soon forget it once he got in a fight...

Does what I said make sense though?

I've got a note in the margin of one of my Bibles... but unfortunately, it's the old "paper" kind, so it's a bit more onerous to search through; I'll have to get back to you with chapter and verse.

Ok...

Saying "what does baptism matter if you don't believe in it anyway?" implies that baptism has no importance other than the importance that the baptized individual gives to it. I think this isn't exactly the official Catholic viewpoint, is it?

Well it's not just about believing it, but about having it mean something in your life. See it as a relationship. If I were to make the decision to leave my wife, it may just become meanigless to me, but it's still meanigful to my kids in the family context.

In the Catholic context, it's not wrong. However, baptism being a good idea is wrapped up in acceptance of a number of Catholic (specifically) and Christian (generally) beliefs. Personally, I think there are some ideas inherent in baptism and original sin that could be considered rather unhealthy*... unless they're correct.

*e.g. that a newborn baby is so inherently evil that he or she must be "fixed", otherwise a good, just and perfect God would be completely right to make the child suffer for all eternity if he or she were to die.

Well, that isn't what we believe so you'll have to relay that message to someone who does. We simply say we don't know.

 

[athanasius]

The gift is already his. Christ gave it to him at birth.

How can you reject a promise somebody else made for you.

I thought we were talking about original sin here.

For the same reason the early Christians did.

How on earth could it do that?

The free gift of God is ours in baptism(Rom 6:23). No one is born already with the gift. If so then it would nullify the entire reason Jesus came into this world to begin with. we would all be the same as Adam and Eve originally were. I suppose this another major thing that separates Orthodox Christiantity from LDS beliefs.

You can reject a promise somebody else made for you the same way a Jew could forfeit his circumcsion by rejecting that covenant with God that was given to him as a baby. Because eventually you must also adhere to the the covenant. The problem here is our different understanding of sacraments. to us the Sacraments are not just mere symbols that represent but we believe they are efficacious in actually giving us grace and saving us by the Holy Spirit through rite performed itself.

If the early Christian Fathers Centuries 1-8 actually did build a Mormon temple, don white robes(undergarments) and baptize the dead the way the LDS interprets it, I would love to read about it from someone like Augustine who wrote about and performed baptisms and spoke of the nature and grace of it.

 

[Katzpur]

The free gift of God is ours in baptism(Rom 6:23). No one is born already with the gift. If so then it would nullify the entire reason Jesus came into this world to begin with. we would all be the same as Adam and Eve originally were. I suppose this another major thing that separates Orthodox Christiantity from LDS beliefs.

It wouldn't nullify the reason He came into this world because there is no one alive who has reached the age of accountability who has not sinned. Anyone who is capable of committing a sin has done so at one time or another, making us all equally in need of a Savior.

Because eventually you must also adhere to the the covenant. The problem here is our different understanding of sacraments. to us the Sacraments are not just mere symbols that represent but we believe they are efficacious in actually giving us grace and saving us by the Holy Spirit through rite performed itself.

We don't believe they are merely symbolic, either, athanasius. We believe they are essential to salvation.

If the early Christian Fathers Centuries 1-8 actually did build a Mormon temple, don white robes(undergarments) and baptize the dead the way the LDS interprets it, I would love to read about it from someone like Augustine who wrote about and performed baptisms and spoke of the nature and grace of it.

Well, I can assure you that nobody ever built a "Mormon" temple until sometime well after the period of time you speak of, and I'm not at liberty to discuss the temple garment with you, so I guess we'll have to drop that point. As far as baptism for the dead is concerned, it doesn't matter whether Augustine believed in this doctrine or not; Paul clearly did.

 

[Quiddity]

Well, it would make a difference who that first century Christian was. If it was an Apostle, I would give it serious consideration. If it wasn't, I'd have to know more about the person to know whether he was speaking authoritatively or not.

Alright, it’s worth another try. Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. Polycarp also was instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also with apostles in Asia, he was later appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna. In his martyrdom he said “Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9: 3)……which was his exact age. It’s always been understood that baptism was what began a person’s relationship with God. Or how about Justin Martyr (100 - 166) of the next generation states about the year 150, "Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years" (Apology 1: 15). Or……Irenaeus (130 - 200), some 35 years later in 185, writes in Against Heresies II 22: 4 that Jesus "came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men."

Remember, these men knew each other, wrote letters to each other, and had a clear connection with the Apostles. What else would you ask for?

There is a difference between being inclined to sin and sinning. We are human beings and have human frailties, but until a person has the maturity and understanding to be able to discern between good and evil, he cannot sin. Once he has reached a point where he can know right from wrong, can understand the need for Christ's Atonement, and can repent of his sins, he can make a commitment to change his life. I don't think that's a difficult concept at all.

Nor do I……but there is something that just doesn’t jive. For example you guys believe that the fall was necessary and that one must do a wrong to fully understand. But then you guys also call it a transgression so it’s almost like you guys are calling it a good thing on one end and a bad thing (transgression) on another. If you guys agree that the fall did something to the human race I’m assuming you think it’s a something inherited spiritually right? If so, then how are infants excluded from this? Surely they have a soul? Perhaps you can expand on this.

I don't see circumcision as having anything to do with original sin; I see baptism of infants as having everything to do with individual sin.

I never made a connection between original sin and circumcision. The connection was between circumcision and baptism. And why in the world do you think infant baptism has anything to do with individual sin? Original Sin has nothing to do with individual sin. That’s precisely what I clarified and you seem to want to go back to it.

I don't know that I've ever heard a Catholic say that an infant has committed a sin, but I have heard many Catholics say that the child must be baptised in order to be absolved of Adam's sins. What I don't understand is why anyone would have to be absolved of someone else's sin. If Jesus' Atonement paid for Adam's sin, why are millions of children still being in some way held accountable for it today?

Because it’s not about “paying for sins” (the Jews already had something that could do that) but about fixing the human nature. Do you not believe it needs fixing? If so, how is that any different? Please don’t tell me anything about the “age of reason”. We can deal with that above. Aside from that what is the difference?

None of my beliefs are based on comfort, Victor, but many are comforting nonetheless.

I believe you; I just don’t believe that was the case for you early ancestors. I really don’t.

I couldn't possibly know when this took place, but I do know that someone at some time was or will be baptized on his behalf prior to the Last Judgment. God has commanded us to be baptized and He will provide a way for each of us to obey this commandment. If He didn't care one way or the other, He wouldn't have given us the commandment in the first place.

C’mon Kat, you know full well such a belief is exclusive to LDS. This really just makes it sound like God baptizes for the Hell of it, with no real meaning. I mean, why baptize someone who is already made it? Clearly paradise isn’t talking of a place where people have a second chance; it presupposes that there is a place that is not paradise. So not everybody goes to paradise; otherwise he could have told all them (those on the cross) he would see them in paradise. But he didn’t, did he? He only told the thief.

You're in Paradise, but you're not in Heaven, and won't be until the Last Judgment. You can get into Heaven whether you are baptized or not, but your potential to progress once there will be impacted by your obedience to God's commandments.

What? You can get into Heaven without baptism? What in the world is the point of it then; if I can enter into a relationship with God without it?

 

[madhatter85]

Katz,

You cannot enter paradise without Baptism by proper authority. otherwise you will enter spirit prison. (not hell yet) to be taught the gospel and either accept it or deny it there.

 

[Francine]

Well, I can assure you that nobody ever built a "Mormon" temple until sometime well after the period of time you speak of, and I'm not at liberty to discuss the temple garment with you, so I guess we'll have to drop that point.

Contrast to the deposit of Sacred Tradition, which the Catholic Church teaches to all men in every age without holding back.
John.18:[20] Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

 

[madhatter85]

Contrast to the deposit of Sacred Tradition, which the Catholic Church teaches to all men in every age without holding back.
John.18:[20] Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

if that is the case then why does the Catholic church hold back information, and only reveal that information to the "initiated". like other texts held in the vatican and whatnot?

 

[Francine]

if that is the case then why does the Catholic church hold back information, and only reveal that information to the "initiated". like other texts held in the vatican and whatnot?

That's two questions. 1) Does the Church reveal texts held in the Vatican vaults to the intiated? and 2) Why does the Church give this to the initated and not to the uninitiated? The answer to the first question is no, which moots the second one. Which leads to the third question, does the Vatican have texts held in secret? To which I answer, I don't know, that's sort of the whole point of having them kept secret. But it is my testimony that all the things pertaining to faith and salvation are under a sunshine policy, in the open air.

 

[Quiddity]

if that is the case then why does the Catholic church hold back information, and only reveal that information to the "initiated". like other texts held in the vatican and whatnot?

The Vatican Library was opened to the public over 50 years ago. Maybe they didn't open it up completely? Maybe Davinci is right? Maybe, they have a UFO speciments? Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[madhatter85]

The Vatican Library was opened to the public over 50 years ago. Maybe they didn't open it up completely? Maybe Davinci is right? Maybe, they have a UFO speciments? Your guess is as good as mine.

Why did they only recently open it up? what was so important to keep from peopel for nearly 2000 years?

 

[Quiddity]

Why did they only recently open it up? what was so important to keep from peopel for nearly 2000 years?

Quantum unicorn farts and cute pixies.

The world couldn't handle such things, so it had to wait for the right time.

I'd honestly answer you if I thought it would make a positive difference.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Ezekiel 18 speaks of personal responsibility for the punishment of sin. God held Adam and Eve personally responsible for their sin and took away their "eternal life privileges" and they did die. Since that time, a doctrine has arisen that we are all under the stain of this "original sin" even though we had nothing to do with the decision.

I think it should be understood like this: Since Adam and Eve no longer possessed the attribute of eternal life, they could not pass that attribute on to their children. God no more punished Adam and Eve's children with death, than a man who punishes an unfaithful wife by killing her also punishes the children who would have been born to her (and the children of those children, and so on) by not letting them come into existence.

We always make decisions for the generation that comes after us. Adam and Eve, being the first parents, made a particularly wide-ranging bad decision. It's not about sin and punishment, but about natural consequences for behavior.

I absolutely spurn, discard, spit on, and crunch under my heels any church, mosque, or synagogue that says the souls of infants who were aborted or left in a dumpster to die go to Baby Hell because they didn't get baptized or circumcised or say the magic words "IAcceptJesusChristAsMyPersonalLordandSavior" or whatever else it is they have to do to overcome a mistaken notion about Original Sin.

I believe it is much simpler than all of that. Eternal life came to Adam and Eve from the Tree of Life. Being banned from that is how death passed upon all men. Inherent in that, to me, is that the knowledge of good and evil was passed to their offspring yet I cannot directly prove that with scripture.

As for babies I believe that it is not until one rejects Christ that one is condemned and at that time/age they become accountable.

 

[Quiddity]

I believe it is much simpler than all of that. Eternal life came to Adam and Eve from the Tree of Life. Being banned from that is how death passed upon all men. Inherent in that, to me, is that the knowledge of good and evil was passed to their offspring yet I cannot directly prove that with scripture.

As for babies I believe that it is not until one rejects Christ that one is condemned and at that time/age they become accountable.

You mean the tree had something in it that caused us to live forever and have knowledge of good and evil?

 

[Francine]

I believe it is much simpler than all of that. Eternal life came to Adam and Eve from the Tree of Life.

Do you believe Adam and Eve had to make regular recourse to the Tree of Life to maintain their eternal life? Because that's what we'd have to do as well, after the resurrection, if so.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Do you believe Adam and Eve had to make regular recourse to the Tree of Life to maintain their eternal life? Because that's what we'd have to do as well, after the resurrection, if so.

It would seem so. I also think it had lingering dimishing effects on subsequent generations due to the diminishing length of lifespans until after Noah. This is supposition on my part as there is no direct Scriptural text to prove this.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You mean the tree had something in it that caused us to live forever and have knowledge of good and evil?

Knowledge of good and evil came fron the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Eternal life came from the Tree of Life.