cont. from previous postHow so? this is a clear "either/or’ situation. As you claim, the scriptures say that baptism is necessary for salvation, especially if the concept of original sin remains. The entire point of something being necessary is that if you don’t HAVE that ‘something,’ you don’t get whatever it is that it is necessary to have. Ergo, if you have to be baptised to be saved, then if you are not baptised, you are not saved. The opposite of ‘saved’ is ‘condemned’ in religious terms.
No. There is a very real difference. In the first instance, infants are not guilty of personal sin, because they lack the reasoning necessary to consciously reject God. It is personal sin that condemns us. Yet the scriptures clearly say baptism is necessary for salvation - i.e. Heaven. That’s what leads to the theological conundrum… what happens to babies who are not guilty of personal sin (so they do not merit Hell), yet die without baptism (which restores the personal relationship with the Father lost because of Adam’s sin)… Hence a “between” place of “limbo” NOT Hell was long ago posited by theologians. That is a very real conundrum that has been pondered for a long long time by theologians. Hence, the Church has recently re-iterated that “limbo” is not doctrine and that the salvation of infants is left in the hands of a merciful God. Can you now see it as a grey issue, rather than a dichotomy?
dianaiad:
Since we believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ took CARE of that original sin (else why go to all that trouble?) then the only sins that need to be remitted are our own personal ones. In order for a sin to BE a sin, the sinner must be aware of the nature of the sin, aware that it is a sin, be able to control his actions…and do it anyway. (This, by the way, is a definition of ‘sin’ that Catholics and Mormons actually agree on. ) Since infants and tiny children (and some adults, for that matter) aren’t capable of DOING this, then why do they require baptism? They are utterly innocent and free of sin. That is our position on this, and the only problems that come with it are those brought by those who plug their own beliefs and requirements into our behavior.
The dilema arises from the apparent scriptural mandate of baptism as necessary for salvation (i.e. entry into Heaven). See my discussion above. Denial of Heaven is not the same as an affirmative condemnation to Hell.
dianaiad:
If ‘original sin’ still applies, then you are correct. If it does not, then we are…and that is the true difference between our beliefs in this area, I think.
So, if a Hindu lives a life that (under her culture) is free from sin, and ends it by jumping into the funeral pyre of her dead husband… she goes to heaven? Can we really lead a life free from sin without the grace of Jesus Christ? And if not, where do LDS members believe they get the grace to live a life pleasing to God? By their own merits? By ordinances in the Temple? By some combination of the two? By just “being a good person?”
dianaiad:
Actually, I’d call it full on Pelagianism, not ‘semi-Pelagianism’ if you are going to assign a name to it. The man was, after all, right. Semi-Pelagianism posits that humanity as a whole is ‘tainted by sin’ as if it were an outside poison. While we believe that the ‘natural man’ is indeed an ‘enemy to God,’ it’s not some outside source that is the problem. It is simply that we all tend to want to do that which is physically pleasant and physically rewarding rather than spiritually so, simply because the physical is so much THERE. It is immediate, and it DOES feel good, at least in the short run. However, just as we are all capable of choosing longer ranged rewards at the expense of short range ones (eventually…don’t expect a toddler to figure that out…) so can we CHOOSE to ask God to give us the strength…grace…to help us grow spiritually.
So, Jesus was just an example for how we are to live lives pleasing to God? Jesus and his work on the cross is not the sole basis upon which our salvation rests?
dianaiad:
We can’t do it without Him, but it is always and only OUR choice whether to accept His grace. We can’t do that unless and until we know what it is we are doing. We don’t NEED it before that, do we?
This contradicts the pelagianism you embraced above. The pelagianism heresy completely denies the need for grace and posits that man can save himself without supernatural grace. If so, why baptize at all?
dianaiad:
I understand that it is sometimes difficult, especially for the anti types out there who can’t see it, but there is a HUGE difference between teaching what WE believe to be true, and insulting and attacking what you believe to be true.
There’s also a huge difference between the “live and let live” espoused at the outset of this thread and the “your church is apostate” chorus I hear from many LDS members who seek to “attack what I believe” to support their own position. Indeed, the entire Mormon position - RESTORATION - *relies *upon a direct attack upon the Catholic faith.
dianaiad:
We would rather say…that’s very Mormon of you.
The thing is, truth is true no matter where you find it. Catholics aren’t all wrong…and neither are we.
My point was that the OP seemed to make some false assumptions about Catholic doctrine that were belied by his conclusion. But I agree with the general proposition that truth is always truth, wherever it resides. Thanks for jumping in. I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.
dianaiad:
and also with you.
-Robert
