I have to take ParkerD’s defense on this one, the full thought is “need to be willing to acknowledge will happen”. we need to acknowledge that sin will happen is what he says, though you have done a good job applying the same technique he used to interpret that reference to interpreting his words.Wow, there is something you said here that is very telling. “…including accepting that sin is part of what we need…” We never need sin. And the reason “we are not going to be perfect” is due to the fact that we suffer from the consequences of original sin and are subject to concupiscence. God did not give us sin to teach us a lesson. We have made our own bed. Christ came to save us from the consequences of our sin which came about through the sin of our first parents.
SteveVH,Wow, there is something you said here that is very telling. “…including accepting that sin is part of what we need…” We never need sin. And the reason “we are not going to be perfect” is due to the fact that we suffer from the consequences of original sin and are subject to concupiscence. God did not give us sin to teach us a lesson. We have made our own bed. Christ came to save us from the consequences of our sin which came about through the sin of our first parents.
Peter John,…
The sentence says, “He remaineth.” “He” is the subject, and “Remaineth” is the verb. What modifies the verb’s application can’t modify the subject.
“But remember that he that persists in his own carnal nature, and goes on in the ways of sin and rebellion against God, remaineth in his fallen state and the devil hath all power over him.”
Persists in his own carnal nature=goes on in the ways of sin and rebellion against God
Carnal nature (the consequence of the Fall)=sin and rebellion against God. That is original sin.
“Persists” and “Goes on” indicate the condition exists prior to the event which could end it, hence after the event (the opportunity to repent) the unrepentant do not begin sin and rebellion against God, they continue as they were.
So you would maintain that statement has no real life application to us?Peter John,
Abinadi was teaching a group of priests who were already in a state of rebellion against God. (He actually reached one of them, Alma, with his teaching in a significant way that changed Alma’s life and the lives of many other people who followed Alma’s subsequent teachings.)
Abinadi had already described the rebellion as recorded in Mosiah 15:26-27, and those verses are not talking about Adam or Eve. Those who so rebel against keeping the commandments and against “hearkening unto the voice of the Lord” are those who have “salvation cometh to none such”, because they “die in their sins”.
For one to “go on in the ways of sin and rebellion against God” means that Abinadi was warning the priests of King Noah that they should change their behavior, because they were persisting “in their own carnal nature” and yet were appearing to be teachers and leaders among the people. They were in a state of rebellion against God, and Abinadi was warning them about the consequences if they continued.
Peter John,So you would maintain that statement has no real life application to us?
Peter John,The Book of Moses is not Biblical, and refers to no ancient manuscripts of which I am aware. It apparently corrupts the Genesis acccount with anachronism. Does this mean you concede that your position on original sin is not Biblical?
Thank you for your description of how the Good Shepherd led me to Catholicism. When I finally and unexpectedly ended up in a Catholic mass I came to recognize how much He had been calling me and inviting me for decades, but I would not listen because of the prejudeices embedded in me from my youth. But he blessed me to recognize a people that accepted the words “deth is done away” as lierally as only those present at Christ’s resurrection could. And it has led me to ever more recognize and further repent of my sins, more effectively by far than anything else I had tried before.Peter John,
It depends on whether you think you have been taught the commandments of God, and what you do with what you have been taught if you have indeed been taught those commandments to the point of having understood them.
The most specific application would be to any “priest” who goes on in the ways of sin and rebellion by sinning against the light and knowledge they have received, by persisting in their own carnal nature through following the devil who is an enemy to all righteousness, and by not allowing themselves through repentance and through spiritual rebirth to be changed from their carnal nature to a condition where they will accept being taught by hearkening “to the voice of the Lord” (Mosiah 16:2), or in other words, by heeding the Good Shepherd who will call them and invite them but will not force their obedience nor force their heart-felt changes and discipleship.
Catholics do not believe that the Bible is the be-all and end-all of all theological knowledge. The only Bible that the earliest Christians had was the hebrew and greek Old Testament. The only liturgy they had was the Jewish Synagogue. Their practice involved attending synagogue as jews, and then going to a Christian’s home for their own extension of this. Any valid Christian liturgy today would have to demonstrate the reading and expounding of Holy Writ, which comes from the Synagogues, and the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper which the Christian’s added.Peter John,
The problem one quickly runs into when they take the position that the Bible is the be-all and the end-all for theological knowledge and for understanding the plan of salvation, is that they disregard the whole idea that Christ offered and still desires to be the teacher of His “disciples”, who should be students and thus should be learning.
Joseph Smith didn’t take that position. He asked for more knowledge and understanding. God granted such knowledge, quite liberally just as James said as a promise from God–but those with the premise that I noted above, will simply be left out of getting any of that promised knowledge.
Still and all, the “original sin” concept is non-Biblical if it leads to the need for infant baptism, and the teaching that Adam or Eve “rebelled” against God is non-Biblical also.
Peter John,
- What in the Bible negates the concept of Original Sin.
Since you affirm that the Mosiah refence only applies to sinful priests, that means anyone who is not can persist in sin and rebellion against God. despite the fact that it describes sin as rebellion against God, tht makes it immaterial. You affirm it means that only priests get judged for failure to repent. for persisting in sin and rebellion against God. That is not LDS doctrine.Peter John,
Your are the one who brought up the teachings of Abinadi, which you certainly could know if you paid attention as you read the Book of Mormon that he was teaching priests. You then asked for a modern application. I was responding to what you asked, and whether you want to infer what you have inferred is your choice but I did not make that inference.
As to this last question, it seems to me the better approach is for you to show or cite the specific Biblical sources that teach the concept of Original Sin (a non-Biblical term) as you see it, and I will be able to use those sources to show that they do not teach the need for the baptism of infants and do not teach that Adam or Eve rebelled against God when they partook of the forbidden fruit.
The next reference is from the plain and precious parts of the Bible that were removed after the Bible went forth from the Jews to the Gentiles.Original sin, to try a different way of expressing it, means that we are born with a tendency to seek our own will. God did not create Humanity to be that way in Adam and Eve, but their choice not only brought us mortality, but made it so that we are conceived with that willfulness – we do not have to be taught it.
Rom. 5:12-13 Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned – for up to the time of the law, sin was in the world, though sin is not accounted when there is no law. usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans5.htmIt is a part of us as children of men. In this willful state, at some time when our will conflicts with the will of God, we will choose our own will over His. That manifests a failure to trust that God knows better. The tendecy toward that is original sin. The actual act against trust in God is personal sin. Even before the actual act, the tendency separates us from Godand.
You already said this leads to the need for infant baptism, so you must show it Biblically wrong .Jesus asserted the necessity of baptism to come to him, and specifically commanded not to hinder children.One who is truly Holy (and Holy means “set apart”) who is completely free of original sin, would dwell in complete unity and communion with God – even the blood flowing in such a one’s veins would be the blood of the Creator, so complete would be the communion. As humanity it is our common burden, as a consequence of Adam and Eve’s choice, to lack the natural capacity for such a full communion. That is the manifestation of Original Sin. We are in a lost and fallen state unless we rely on (or in other words trust in) our Redeemer.
SteveVH,
It ought to be clear to anyone that I can’t help you understand what I was saying if you take half of a sentence and consider that you have the whole meaning from the sentence. I realize that it served your purpose to do so, but evidently the concept that “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) does not bear well with your theological premise. It is, however, exactly what I was saying but had put into words that accepted that scripture and taught the concept.
Parker, first of all I owe you a huge apology. I read through your post very fast for reasons that are not important here, and completely misunderstood your words. To do this and then to make the comments I made was irresponsible at best. I am truly sorry and hope you will accept my apology.Orginally Posted by Peter John
I have to take ParkerD’s defense on this one, the full thought is “need to be willing to acknowledge will happen”. we need to acknowledge that sin will happen is what he says, though you have done a good job applying the same technique he used to interpret that reference to interpreting his words.
Please note that the last quote on the post this links to is misattibuted and was mine>.
That’s why we get each other’s back’s. I figured it was something like that.Parker, first of all I owe you a huge apology. I read through your post very fast for reasons that are not important here, and completely misunderstood your words. To do this and then to make the comments I made was irresponsible at best. I am truly sorry and hope you will accept my apology.
Peter John, thank you for your comments and for coming to Parker’s defense on that one. If there was a way I could delete that post it would be gone.
This was not my best moment.
SteveVH,Parker, first of all I owe you a huge apology. I read through your post very fast for reasons that are not important here, and completely misunderstood your words. To do this and then to make the comments I made was irresponsible at best. I am truly sorry and hope you will accept my apology.
Peter John, thank you for your comments and for coming to Parker’s defense on that one. If there was a way I could delete that post it would be gone.
This was not my best moment.
You are very gracious.SteveVH,
Thanks for your apology, and I accept what you have said and sincerely appreciate your clarification that you misunderstood.
Correct if I’m wrong, I think Irenaeus and the Eastern Orthodox Church share this position with Mormons.SteveVH,
One reason I am explaining this so much is that LDS do not often realize, apart from original sin, how much their view of the fall differs from other Christians. LDS do not base these beliefs on the Bible, and really very little on references to the Fall in the Book of Mormon, though they lean heavily on its, “Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy.”.
Peter John,…Jesus asserted the necessity of baptism to come to him, and specifically commanded not to hinder children.
Paul declared baptism the replacement for circumcision (Col. 2:11-12), which was primarily for infants and only rarely affecting adults.The fact that Children are not mentioned as excluded is significant. Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, and 1 Cor. 1:16 all mention entire households or families being baptized without excluding children from the list. The latter example is most significant, since Paul wrote both that and the comparison to circumcision.
It will continue to be unbridgeable as long as you continue nresponding to what I did not say. That is not communication. In general I have at least acknowledged your spurious points, but come back to the central focus.By ignoring your other comments, it doesn’t mean I have agreed with what you have written in those comments, nor even with what you said it means I meant–I just am ignoring because the gap of communication is so wide that it doesn’t appear bridgeable.
I agree. I equated you with a passage equating sin with rebellion. I then asked if you believe Adam sinned. If you do not want to answer that question, and do not want to pay attention to what I already wrote, then forget about it.None of the passages you presented use a word “rebel” or “rebellious” to describe Adam or Eve or their act of partaking the forbidden fruit.
I agree that nothing reports them doing that. However, given the practice of entering the covenant being required at eight days old in Israel, and given that this was the new manner of entering the covenant, something indicating this change was intended would seem in order to declare that baptizing infants is not valid.Jesus didn’t baptize the infants who were brought to Him, nor did the apostles, nor did the apostles show by their actions initially that they were in any way familiar with a concept of infants needing baptism or they would have reacted completely differently than sending the parents of those infants away–of course.
Nothing in any of those verses changes baptism as the replacement for the infant sacrament of circumcision. Regarding the direction you seem to be headed, if you want to start a thread on acceptable forms of baptism go ahead. It is off topic here. None of that affects the central affirmation that baptism replaces circumcision, and circumcision was performed on infants.I would say that a person who reads Colossians 2:11-13 ought to continue reading through 3:14 to get the full context of the teaching about “putting off the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ,” and then also read Romans 6:2-13 to understand the metaphor Paul was using and the comparison of baptism with the burial of Christ and His resurrection.
Verse 16 is an independendent thought, a discrete statement, tangential and not dependent on the primary assumption of the monologue at that point. In the NAB it is set in parentheses.It is like an aside, a “by the way”.The idea that 1 Corinthians 1:16 includes infant baptism is completely refuted by verse 12 and the words “every one of you saith:” An infant wouldn’t be saying “I am of Paul;” or “I am of Apollos;” or “I am of Cephas;” or “I am of Christ”.
We do not deny it is a voluntary act – and we do not even affirm unequivocably that it was performed on children during New Testament times. We affirm that the practice is consistent with the scriptures, as the replacement for circumcision as a parental obligation, which covenant the child later chooses to accept or reject. What refutes that?A person who reads the verses you cited in Acts ought to read the entire book of Acts and see the many instances where baptism is shown to be a voluntary act on the part of the one receiving belief in Christ and then baptism, such as in Acts 16:30-34 which uses the words “believing in God with all his house.”
As I said, if you want to start a separate thread on the proper form of baptism go ahead. Catholics to recognize baptism by immersion. The only other thing I will comment is that the Native American Sweat Lodge ritual even more closely conforms to the description you offer of what baptism should be, so shouldn’t we baptize that way?Nevertheless, the Bible has been given to the world by God in such a way that your free will choice is given to you even in the simple and important matter of deciding whether you want to believe infants should be baptized–so you may choose to believe they should because of the word “household”, and I may see all of the scriptures that describe baptism completely differently than is done in the method and time of life you have chosen for its being done–and our free will choice will have been allowed in that what was needed by each of us was getting a relationship with Christ and the Holy Ghost that allowed personal revelation about the whole matter and understanding about baptism as being “born of water” in a “second birth” where one “comes out of the water” “a new creature”.
Iraeneus may share that view, but it doesn’t make it accurate. Sidney Rigdon had some LDS interpretations inconsistent with Brigham Young, too – but we covered that in another thread.Correct if I’m wrong, I think Irenaeus and the Eastern Orthodox Church share this position with Mormons.
“Some interpreters have suggested a quite different approach to this text, seeing it in terms of a “fall upward,” which the becoming like God theme might suggest…at least since Irenaeus in the second century” (Bruggemann, W.et al., A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament, Abingdon Press, p. 48)
I can’t tell if you are wrong. You haven’t said anything about what Irenaeus believed, what the Eastern Orthodox teaches, and how that compares with Mormonism. Maybe include a few quotes of Irenaeus.Correct if I’m wrong, I think Irenaeus and the Eastern Orthodox Church share this position with Mormons.
“Some interpreters have suggested a quite different approach to this text, seeing it in terms of a “fall upward,” which the becoming like God theme might suggest…at least since Irenaeus in the second century” (Bruggemann, W.et al., A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament, Abingdon Press, p. 48)
What text? something changed since Irenaeus means he believed something? what?Some interpreters have suggested quite a different approach to this text, seeing it in terms of a “fall upward,” which the becoming like God theme might suggest. Most have interpreted this “fall” negatively. Human beings transgress the limits of creatureliness and assume godlike powers for themselves; yet, this assumes a more basic problem, namely mistrust. Others have taken theme in a positive direction (at least since Irenaeus in the second century)