Mormons: Your take on the concept of "Orginal Sin"

[ParkerD]

ParkerD, Jesus said those who are like little children are those who enter the Kingdom of Heaven. He also has taught that baptism is required to enter His Kingdom. Either you believe that, or you don’t. He never qualified His statement with, “unless they are under 9 years old”. No Christian believed an infant should be denied baptism, until the Protestant Reformation. (Of which, Mormonism is a fruit.)

RJ,
The Protestant Reformation happened because people started reading the Bible and thinking on their own, without letting themselves be led into the foolish approach that “all of the thinking has been done.” The Protestant Reformation questioned infant baptism, because infant baptism is neither taught in the Bible nor is it implied in the very situation you cited.

So basically it would seem that those in the position of defending infant baptism while yet believing in those verses about Christ and the little children, are saying neither the Apostles nor Christ knew what they were doing with regards to little children, and needed the ECF to correct the doctrine. If you think I am impressed by that, then no, I am not.

St. Paul teaches that baptism replaces circumcisions. I suppose you believe that Jews force their children into a covenant as well?

So it would seem that one who takes the idea of the new covenant replacing the old covenant and wants infant baptism to be a part of the new covenant, is able to disregard that Christ told Nicodemus nothing about there being a “new circumcision” but instead taught him about being baptized by water (immersion) and by the Spirit or by fire.

Paul was teaching Jews whenever he wrote about baptism “replacing” circumcision. Circumcision was the sign of a birth covenant, but Gentiles were not a part of that birth covenant–they come in under the new covenant gospel, so Paul was drawing a similarity but he also tried to make the distinction which I have not seen that many Catholics “get”. (Of course they don’t–they must use circumcision to defend infant baptism.)

You really should rethink this, and what it means. Would you not clothe your children or stop feeding them because they haven’t asked you to sustain their life? So baptism sustains their life in God, from infancy, and provides them with grace to grow with Him, in His family.

Those words sound nice, but they disregard what the Savior taught explicitly and implicitly. But it works for a lot of people–I’ll grant them that.

You may bless your children but you don’t consider them members of your church until they are baptized. They are merely a “child of record”, not a full member of your community.

The distinction about a “child of record” is so that each child realizes that when they become of age to be baptized, they need to make a decision that their parents shouldn’t be making for them–a covenant decision under the new covenant gospel, which they need to make for themselves so that it is truly a personal, committed covenant. Of course little children are considered “full members of our community”.

But every time a discussion on this topic of infant baptism ensues on this forum, it becomes a never-ending discussion.

I think Zerinus’ and Flyonthewall’s comments have been very insightful and helpful to anyone really thinking about “Original Sin”–I hope those comments are read on their own merits, and not in the defensive mode related to defending “infant baptism”.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RJ,
The Protestant Reformation happened because people started reading the Bible and thinking on their own, without letting themselves be led into the foolish approach that “all of the thinking has been done.” The Protestant Reformation questioned infant baptism, because infant baptism is neither taught in the Bible nor is it implied in the very situation you cited.

So basically it would seem that those in the position of defending infant baptism while yet believing in those verses about Christ and the little children, are saying neither the Apostles nor Christ knew what they were doing with regards to little children, and needed the ECF to correct the doctrine. If you think I am impressed by that, then no, I am not.

Canned anti-Catholic response. Care to try again?

So it would seem that one who takes the idea of the new covenant replacing the old covenant and wants infant baptism to be a part of the new covenant, is able to disregard that Christ told Nicodemus nothing about there being a “new circumcision” but instead taught him about being baptized by water (immersion) and by the Spirit or by fire.

Paul was teaching Jews whenever he wrote about baptism “replacing” circumcision. Circumcision was the sign of a birth covenant, but Gentiles were not a part of that birth covenant–they come in under the new covenant gospel, so Paul was drawing a similarity but he also tried to make the distinction which I have not seen that many Catholics “get”. (Of course they don’t–they must use circumcision to defend infant baptism.)

ParkerD, it is you who aren’t “getting it”. Maybe one day your eyes will be opened and you’ll realize how much explaining away of truth mormonism has done.

Those words sound nice, but they disregard what the Savior taught explicitly and implicitly. But it works for a lot of people–I’ll grant them that.

Reality ParkerD, reality. Stay in it. To scoop it out is to venture into relativism. What is the reality of baptism? What is its sign and meaning? If you say it is only to make a promise to God (which is but one aspect) I might take the trouble to find you just so I can slap you upside the head.

The distinction about a “child of record” is so that each child realizes that when they become of age to be baptized, they need to make a decision that their parents shouldn’t be making for them–a covenant decision under the new covenant gospel, which they need to make for themselves so that it is truly a personal, committed covenant. Of course little children are considered “full members of our community”.

What makes a mormon a “member of the church”? Baptism?..so you’re just saying you love your kids well enough and all, but they can’t be baptized until they tell you they want to be a part of community…at the whopping age of 8. I really don’t see why you just don’t do it at birth.

But every time a discussion on this topic of infant baptism ensues on this forum, it becomes a never-ending discussion.

I think Zerinus’ and Flyonthewall’s comments have been very insightful and helpful to anyone really thinking about “Original Sin”–I hope those comments are read on their own merits, and not in the defensive mode related to defending “infant baptism”.

Zerinus ignores half of what is being said. Flyonthewall seems to be a newbie mormon to me, but maybe that is just my impression.

 

[ParkerD]

…ParkerD,
What is the reality of baptism? What is its sign and meaning? If you say it is only to make a promise to God (which is but one aspect) I might take the trouble to find you just so I can slap you upside the head.

What makes a mormon a “member of the church”? Baptism?..so you’re just saying you love your kids well enough and all, but they can’t be baptized until they tell you they want to be a part of community…at the whopping age of 8. I really don’t see why you just don’t do it at birth…

RJ,

I agree that my response was insensitive and should have been more thoughtful. I know that a Catholic parent is doing exactly what they surmise is the right thing to do in taking their baby to be baptized, and I have no doubt that God knows that also and looks on that with kindness.

I would be taking a much different approach to the subject of the symbolism (sign) of baptism than I would expect you to take, so I am going to answer your questions only from my perspective, realizing that yours would be much different and no doubt has deep meaning for you.

When I was baptized at age eight, I had not the slightest thought in my mind that I was “becoming a member of the Church”. I knew I was already a “member of the Church”. I was thinking, “I want to be baptized to show Jesus that I truly accept Him as my Lord and Savior for this future part of my life when I am going to need repentance because I am going to make no-longer-innocent mistakes that will need repentance. Also, that I have covenanted with Him to be a lively participant for the rest of my life in the Church and in doing “good to all men” through following His example of unselfishness, kindness, meekness, and the power from choosing the right choice when there is a choice to be made.”

My youngest daughter, now age 13, was baptized at age eight-and-a-half, due to the need to wait until the doctor OK’d that she could go under the water with a tracheotomy and there was not a worry of ingesting water into her lungs. She would not for a second have thought she “wasn’t a member of the Church” before her baptism. Nor was it a case where she was not already experiencing the Holy Ghost in her life, as she has seemed to have a spiritual inclination all through her years of growing up. She was certainly already “part of the community of members” and knew that, having experienced all the blessings of that fellowship and membership as a tiny child and a young child. But she chose to be baptized, and was excited to do that the same way Jesus was baptized–because she loves God and believed in making a lively, outwardly symbolic and inwardly symbolic covenant with God and with the Savior.

Part of my covenant-making through being baptized has to do with placing my body and spirit into the “hands of God and Christ” for their molding influence, for accepting the changes that they are going to guide me to make in my life, and showing through symbolic burial in the water that that is going to be an ongoing process that began when I placed my body into their “hands” and was spiritually “reborn” just as a new baby is born from the water in the womb of the mother, and comes into a newness of life. I loved that newness of life then, and love it still. I am still being “reborn” and “renewed”. Personally, I love it, and wouldn’t have it any other way. (But to each their own.)

 

[RebeccaJ]

RJ,

I agree that my response was insensitive and should have been more thoughtful. I know that a Catholic parent is doing exactly what they surmise is the right thing to do in taking their baby to be baptized, and I have no doubt that God knows that also and looks on that with kindness.

I would be taking a much different approach to the subject of the symbolism (sign) of baptism than I would expect you to take, so I am going to answer your questions only from my perspective, realizing that yours would be much different and no doubt has deep meaning for you.

I didn’t say symbol, I said sign.

When I was baptized at age eight, I had not the slightest thought in my mind that I was “becoming a member of the Church”. I knew I was already a “member of the Church”. I was thinking, “I want to be baptized to show Jesus that I truly accept Him as my Lord and Savior for this future part of my life when I am going to need repentance because I am going to make no-longer-innocent mistakes that will need repentance. Also, that I have covenanted with Him to be a lively participant for the rest of my life in the Church and in doing “good to all men” through following His example of unselfishness, kindness, meekness, and the power from choosing the right choice when there is a choice to be made.”

My youngest daughter, now age 13, was baptized at age eight-and-a-half, due to the need to wait until the doctor OK’d that she could go under the water with a tracheotomy and there was not a worry of ingesting water into her lungs. She would not for a second have thought she “wasn’t a member of the Church” before her baptism. Nor was it a case where she was not already experiencing the Holy Ghost in her life, as she has seemed to have a spiritual inclination all through her years of growing up. She was certainly already “part of the community of members” and knew that, having experienced all the blessings of that fellowship and membership as a tiny child and a young child. But she chose to be baptized, and was excited to do that the same way Jesus was baptized–because she loves God and believed in making a lively, outwardly symbolic and inwardly symbolic covenant with God and with the Savior.

Part of my covenant-making through being baptized has to do with placing my body and spirit into the “hands of God and Christ” for their molding influence, for accepting the changes that they are going to guide me to make in my life, and showing through symbolic burial in the water that that is going to be an ongoing process that began when I placed my body into their “hands” and was spiritually “reborn” just as a new baby is born from the water in the womb of the mother, and comes into a newness of life. I loved that newness of life then, and love it still. I am still being “reborn” and “renewed”. Personally, I love it, and wouldn’t have it any other way. (But to each their own.)

Very nice stories. But you are dodging what I asked, instead falling back to a feel-good “testimony”

Habit, I assume.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Not quite sure I follow…could you elaborate?

I have never stated that anyone in this life escapes the effects of “original sin”. We all will die, we all can get sick, we all suffer hunger & thirst, sorrow and pain. What I am trying to state, and evidently very poorly, is that original sin is not counted against us. Only the things we do in this life will be considered at judgement.

Church Teachings: CCC
**403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292 **

Yes, we are all of the human race, but we will not be held accountable for original sin. “Original sin” only set the environment we live in.

CCC: 404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

Baptism is for the remission of sin, sin which we commit. Telll me, what sin has a newborn babe committed?
**You are speaking of a Mormon Baptism. I am speaking of a Chritsian Baptism **
**Because of Adams sin we all inherit original sin, even newborns. This is Christian. So we will have to agree to disagree. **

As we grow and live in this environment, sin enters our heart to one extent or another, but we are not born with sin.

I’m not sure what it means to “refuse to accept our position in creation”, but I agree with the rest of your statement.

When we sin, this sin stems from original sin. If there was no original sin we would not sin. You cannot separate the two.

Adam did not accept his position as creature, he was tempted to desire in his own rite what Christ has always had with the father. He had it all in the Garden of Eden yet he wanted to posses it rather than accept Gods grace as the greatest gift given to creation. This is the great separation from Gods grace. Mormons accept this as a good thing. Catholics accept this as a bad thing that did not need to happen, yet it did because we are not God.

** It is a process of seeing what this sin consists of, seeing our God nailed to the cross, In this being forgiven, in this never wanting to sin again. Where are desire turns to getting back to the garden never wanting to leave again. There by the grace of God we go! Through our Baptism in Christ he carries us back home as a lost lamb upon His back. **

---

---

---

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus ignores half of what is being said.

Zerinus doesn’t like wasting his time with time wasters.

 

[flyonthewall]

I ask you please, to get your quote tags right, it makes it easier to follow.

**Church Teachings: CCC 403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292 **I see where you get your beliefs from.

CCC: 404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin

 

[catholic-rcia]

Yes, I am speakin of an LDS baptism, and you are speaking of a Catholic baptism.

.

Yes…

Keep in mind that is was never called the Christian Church. It was called the Catholic church- churches (universal in Christ) with Christians in this Church. So it would be right to say a Christian baptism in the Catholic Church. If you really want to learn exactly what Christians believe as to original sin, the fall go here:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm#385
The numbers throughout are for scriptural reference. They are found at the bottom of the page. This one page helped bring me out of the LDS church. I saw the LDS as taking exactly what was offered by Satan and thinking it was a good thing. It kinda scared me a bit. So now I am Catholic, a sinner in transition and loving every moment with Jesus. Mostly in the confessional where I am free to choose this type of freedom over sin. Makes Holy Communion so special.

The link above is very east to read and clear. Other than that I think we are finished.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Mormons know all the responses by Catholics. Some have catechisms.

The point is to use our forum charitably and to teach those who are reading such posts true Catholic doctrine.

The only stories coming out of the ancient world that we have any type of documentation, including their own oral tradition, is the stories come out from Sumeria, the land of Ur — the area of the world where Abraham, originated.

You will find similar creation stories. Scientists are still discovering ancient remains that look like predecessors to homo sapiens. Did a male and female homo sapiens evolve at the same time to be the first man and woman? Can we consider them only the first humans but not the Neanderthals who were capable of artistic and meritorious drawings on some caves in France and not call them human?

The creation story is myth but truth of God and who we are is drawn from it.

We have to look at Abraham – the beginning patriarch of the Jewish people. We have to look back to the Jewish history recorded in the Bible to find our origins.

 

[SteveVH]

Our scripture teaches that children are “alive in Christ,” meaning that they are not subject to spiritual death:

This would be a great difference in our beliefs. If spiritual death is, indeed, a consequence of the “Fall”, which means that it would be inherited by Adam’s children, yet you claim that children are spiritually alive, then what you are really saying is that spiritual death has no consequence.

That is a clever question which I think a Mormon has not thought about. I don’t have a ready answer to that question from LDS scripture. I can only give it as a personal opinion, based on my general understanding of LDS doctrine, that infants and children are spiritually alive in Christ until they reach the age of accountability. We believe that that is around the age of eight. Now I don’t think that means that they instantly start sinning as soon as they reach that age. I believe that is the age at which they begin to become accountable for their sins, including anything they may have done wrong before that time, for which they would not have been held accountable before that time. That is the point at which they need baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost to obtain the remission of their sins and a “newness of life”.

Well, I was really not trying to be clever but I appreciate your honesty. I think it is important to realize that the commission of personal sin, when one reaches the age of reason, is not at issue here. We all commit personal sin subsequent to our baptism
(or, in your case, subsequent to receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost). This presupposes that we have obtained spiritual life, in one way or another, but continue to sin. Spiritual death can occur through the commission of serious (mortal) sin, but we are talking about a spiritual death that comes from Adam and Eve, not our personal sins. Baptism of an adult would would have a two-fold effect of remitting personal sin and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. In the case of an infant, it would entail receiving supernatural life through the reception of the Holy Spirit only, as no personal sin has been committed.

We believe that we are born subject to the consequences of original sin which means that we are born spiritually dead and must receive baptism in order to become spiritually alive; that is, we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, the “Giver of life” at baptism. It is only through the Holy Spirit that we can become spiritually alive. We desire spiritual life even for infants.

We think that Baptism remits past sins, and it is the Holy Ghost that infuses us with a new life.

I find nothing in this statement with which I would disagree, other than we believe that both take place at baptism (remission of sins and gift of the Holy Ghost). The gift of the Holy Spirit is strengthened within us through the sacrament of Confirmation.

That is actually a Protestant doctrine that the Catholics have found convenient to borrow from them; and it is in fact a false analogy, because circumcision only applies to males, while baptism applies to males as well as females. They are not analogous with each other.

I’m not sure if it is the statement itself that bothers me, or the fact that you present it as if there is no question of its truthfulness. We have borrowed nothing from the Protestants. This belief has been held by the Church from the beginning. Both circumcision and baptism are signs of a covenant with God, a door through which we pass in order to enter into the family of God. Circumcision was the sign of the covenant with Abraham and affected not only those men who were circumcised, but their families as well. It was for Abraham and all of his descendants. Christ instituted the New Covenant, an everlasting covenant, and we enter into this covenant through baptism. If God welcomed even eight day old infants into his family through circumcision, then why would He not welcome infants into His family through baptism? By the way, it is Paul, not the Protestants, who claimed that baptism had replaced circumcision.

I agree we enter into a new covenant with God at baptism. But it is not equivalent to, or analogous to the rite of circumcision.

See above.

I see two problems here: firstly, baptism and circumcision are not analogous for the reason just described; secondly, in order to justify infant baptism you are reading a new meaning into baptism which is not borne out by scripture. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that baptism is unto repentance for the remission of sins; neither of which applies to infants (unless you regard infants sinners because of the Original Sin).

Where you are in error is that, while baptism certainly remits sin, it does more than that.

"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38)

It is how we are “born again” and why being “born again” is absolutely necessary because we are naturally born spiritually dead. Through baptism we are born of “water and the Spirit”.

 

[SteveVH]

I think what he is trying to say is that some of the benefits of the Atonement come to us unconditionally, while others are dependent on our actions. Redemption from physical death, for example, comes to us unconditionally, whether we be saints or sinners; because we will all be resurrected at some point, and will not physically die again. Obtaining salvation or eternal life, however, is dependent on our actions.

This is probably a subject for another thread. Not all will be redeemed. Some (remember the sheep and the goats) will go to everlasting punishment, eternal separation from God; i.e. hell.

Actually, believe it or not, the Atonement of Christ redeems us from spiritual death unconditionally as well, when we are restored back to the presence of God after the resurrection, to be judged of our works. It is only after that final judgment that, if our works have been evil, we are condemned, and then we suffer a second death, which is a spiritual death, not a physical death.

The logical conclusion of your argument, then, is that spiritual death is not a consequence of the fall. I don’t think you properly understand the atonement, or justification. Christ’s sacrifice opened the gates of heaven which had been closed since the sin of Adam. It was for all people, as God desires that all be saved. We know, however, that not all are saved. It is necessary that we accept God’s grace and mercy and live according to His will. Those who reject the very sacrifice that was given in order to obtain their salvation will have no part in its benefits (eternal life). Judgment is immediate and those who have not accepted God’s grace, mercy and forgiveness will never enter the presence of God.

We believe that infants receive that “gratuitous gift from God” unconditionally without the need for baptism. When they reach the “age of reason” they begin to become accountable for their actions, and that is when they are in need of the sacraments for their salvation.

Yes, I think you have made that clear and you know my response. I suppose one of the problems we have in communicating is in relation to our respective beliefs about the nature of baptism and sacraments in general. You have referred to baptism as a sacrament and I know you refer to communion as a sacrament. Which sacraments do you recognize and how would you define a sacrament?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I do not mean to say that the atonement is a guarantee that all people will be in the presence of God, but that one of the things it does is it eliminates the effects of Adam’s action. If “original sin” was brought about because of Adam, it would be unjust to be held accountable for Adam’s action…the playing field, so to speak, would be unfairly unbalanced. The Atonement levels the playing field so it will be what we ourselves do in this life that we will be judged by and rewarded by. Original sin will not be a factor in our judgement, but will be part of the environment we live in.

Hello FOTW;

From your earlier posts you seem to be saying that LDS theology agrees with Catholic theology that humanity is in a fallen state because of Adam’s sin, at least on a physical level becuase humans die, are tempted to sin, etc. If that’s the case, then isn’t the playing field still “uneven” despite the LDS belief that the Atonement removes the guilt arising from Adam’s sin?

From the Catholic perspective, we believe there are both the physical and spiritual effects of Adam’s sins that are transmitted, including the loss of “justification” (right relationship with God), which is restored by Christ through the grace of baptism. Through baptism we believe we become dead to sin, and alive in Christ, so that our relationship with the Father is restored through Him. Does the LDS Church believe something similar about baptism, or is it just an outward sign of something else?

Are you also saying that you believe LDS theology teaches that as a result of Christ’s atonement, all human beings are now born in a right relationship with God? So that salvation is a possibility, provided that the individuals commit no personal sin? If so, do you believe that a person can go his or her entire life without committing a personal sin? If so, how? If not, how does that person’s personal sin effect that relationship with God?

Maybe I’m not following you altogether, but it sounds to me like you and Zerinus are suggesting that Christ is important because He is the example that we must follow to remain righteous, but that His grace in our life (through sacraments, ordinances, or some other means) is not needed for one to go to heaven. Is this right? Please share your point of view.

I suppose another way to ask you the question is: Can you clarify what role you see Jesus Christ as playing with respect to an individual person’s salvation, beyond the Atonement. Is it just His example? Is it his grace and, if so, how do we receive it? Or is it something altogether different that I missed.

I look forward to your response.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Sorry Robert, I find your posts so incongruous and incoherent, and there is such a great logical divide between your premises and conclusions, that they are almost impossible to reply to. I will be excused.

There’s nothing to excuse Z.

Perhaps I am simply a poor communicator, but I did think my points were clear and my questions were straightforward.

I do appreciate constructive feedback. So, would you please let me know how my posts have been incongruous, incoherent and illogical? One or two specific examples of what you were struggling with would be much appreciated. Feel free to PM me if you want.

Peace,
Robert

 

[zerinus]

This would be a great difference in our beliefs. If spiritual death is, indeed, a consequence of the “Fall”, which means that it would be inherited by Adam’s children, yet you claim that children are spiritually alive, then what you are really saying is that spiritual death has no consequence.

No. What I am saying is that you can’t have your cake and eat it. You can’t say that little children who die in infancy are saved (which you do), but on the other hand say that they are spiritually dead. You have to make up your mind which side of the fence you want to jump.

Spiritual death can occur through the commission of serious (mortal) sin, but we are talking about a spiritual death that comes from Adam and Eve, not our personal sins. Baptism of an adult would would have a two-fold effect of remitting personal sin and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. In the case of an infant, it would entail receiving supernatural life through the reception of the Holy Spirit only, as no personal sin has been committed.

You are distorting and twisting your own Catholic theology here. Catholicism teaches that infant baptisms are performed for the remission of the Original Sin.

We believe that we are born subject to the consequences of original sin which means that we are born spiritually dead and must receive baptism in order to become spiritually alive; that is, we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, the “Giver of life” at baptism.

That is contradicted by scripture. The scriptures teach that baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost are two separate sacraments. They are not combined into one:

Acts 8:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

Acts 19:

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

It is only through the Holy Spirit that we can become spiritually alive. We desire spiritual life even for infants.

Like I said, you need to make up your mind whether infants are spiritually dead or alive. If they are dead, how can you say you believe they are saved after death (which you do)?

I find nothing in this statement with which I would disagree, other than we believe that both take place at baptism (remission of sins and gift of the Holy Ghost). The gift of the Holy Spirit is strengthened within us through the sacrament of Confirmation.

See above.

I’m not sure if it is the statement itself that bothers me, or the fact that you present it as if there is no question of its truthfulness. We have borrowed nothing from the Protestants. This belief has been held by the Church from the beginning. Both circumcision and baptism are signs of a covenant with God, a door through which we pass in order to enter into the family of God. Circumcision was the sign of the covenant with Abraham and affected not only those men who were circumcised, but their families as well. It was for Abraham and all of his descendants. Christ instituted the New Covenant, an everlasting covenant, and we enter into this covenant through baptism. If God welcomed even eight day old infants into his family through circumcision, then why would He not welcome infants into His family through baptism? By the way, it is Paul, not the Protestants, who claimed that baptism had replaced circumcision.

I refer you to the link I gave you on post #6 of this thread. Here is a quote from that link:

A series of protestant writers have sought to justify the practice of infant baptism by seeing it as a sign of the covenant between God and his people. The baptism of infants inside the church is regarded as a direct counterpart of the Jewish rite of circumcision.

The origins of this approach are to be found with Zwingli. In common with some patristic theologians, particularly within the eastern church, Zwingli regarded the “original guilt” with considerable skepticism. . . .

Continued . . . /

 

[zerinus]

/. . . Continued

Where you are in error is that, while baptism certainly remits sin, it does more than that.

"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38)

It is how we are “born again” and why being “born again” is absolutely necessary because we are naturally born spiritually dead. Through baptism we are born of “water and the Spirit”.

I think the error here is with you. That scripture does not mean that the gift of the Holy Spirit is automatically given at baptism. It simply means that it follows baptism, through the sacrament of the laying on of hands, as shown in the above quotes. The gift of the Holy Ghost follows baptism, I agree, but not automatically. It comes though the laying on of hands, as attested in other scriptures.

This is probably a subject for another thread. Not all will be redeemed. Some (remember the sheep and the goats) will go to everlasting punishment, eternal separation from God; i.e. hell.

Sure they may go to hell; but after the resurrection they they will not die physically, even though they may go to hell. What do you think happens to people who go to hell after the resurrection? Do they lose their bodies somehow?

The logical conclusion of your argument, then, is that spiritual death is not a consequence of the fall. I don’t think you properly understand the atonement, or justification. . . .

I don’t think you “properly understood” what I said, and that is not the “logical conclusion of what I said” at all.

Yes, I think you have made that clear and you know my response. I suppose one of the problems we have in communicating is in relation to our respective beliefs about the nature of baptism . . .

That is a valid point. You are trying to redefine the meaning of baptism in order to preserve your theology of infant baptisms. In the scriptures, baptism is unto repentance for the remission of sins. You try to give it a different meaning, and that will not do.

. . . and sacraments in general. You have referred to baptism as a sacrament and I know you refer to communion as a sacrament. Which sacraments do you recognize and how would you define a sacrament?

We don’t use the word sacrament very much. What you call sacraments we call ordinances of the gospel. I like to use the word sacrament so that what I say makes better sense to Catholics. But they essentially mean the same things.

We recognize all the seven sacraments that the Catholic Church recognizes, plus a few more. We have something called patriarchal blessings, which in every way conforms to the definition of a sacrament. We have something called the dedication of graves, which is also a sacrament. We have more priesthood offices than you do, and the ordination (consecration) of each of them could strictly be regarded as a separate sacrament. And of course we have the rites performed in the temples, such as eternal marriage, sealings, washings, annointings, endowments, baptisms for the dead, all of which are sacraments in their own right. So we have a lot more sacraments than you do!

And in answer to your last question, a sacrament (or ordinance as we would call it) is a rite, a ritual, that is performed by the authority of the priesthood. It has a set procedure that must be followed, and it must be performed by the authority of the priesthood for it to be valid. Catholics use different words to define a sacrament, but in essence it means more or less the same thing. The biggest difference probably is that you believe that priesthood authority may not always be necessary to perform some of the sacraments, such as baptism for example in an emergency. But from our point of view priesthood authority is indispensable for the performance of sacraments. There are no exceptions.

 

[flyonthewall]

Hello FOTW;

From your earlier posts you seem to be saying that LDS theology agrees with Catholic theology that humanity is in a fallen state because of Adam’s sin, at least on a physical level becuase humans die, are tempted to sin, etc. If that’s the case, then isn’t the playing field still “uneven” despite the LDS belief that the Atonement removes the guilt arising from Adam’s sin?

That is a good question…and hopefully I can give a good answer.
As lobsided as it may seem, it really isn’t. Yes there is a lot of sin and temptation in this world, but there are ways to get beyond them. Genesis states that man can know between good and evil. That is half the battle…to know good and to know evil. The other half is to make the right choice. Easy in theory, but not so much in practice.
If we do make a bad choice, there is a way to undo that choice - repentance. There is as much opportunity to repent as there are ways to sin.

From the Catholic perspective, we believe there are both the physical and spiritual effects of Adam’s sins that are transmitted, including the loss of “justification” (right relationship with God), which is restored by Christ through the grace of baptism. Through baptism we believe we become dead to sin, and alive in Christ, so that our relationship with the Father is restored through Him. Does the LDS Church believe something similar about baptism, or is it just an outward sign of something else?

We do believe something similar about baptism. Baptism is an ordinance which through the atonement, washes away our sins up to that point. From then on, we must repent of the sins we do. Baptism is also a covenant we make with God. Simply put, we promise to obey His commandments, and He promises to forgive when we repent, give us the Gift of the Holy Ghost and allow us to live with Him, so it does put our relationship with Him on the right path. We consider Baptism the first step of a lifelong journey.
As far as being “dead” to sin, well, even after baptism we can still make a wrong choice and sin, so I’m not sure how that fits with your definition of being “dead” to sin.

Are you also saying that you believe LDS theology teaches that as a result of Christ’s atonement, all human beings are now born in a right relationship with God? So that salvation is a possibility, provided that the individuals commit no personal sin? If so, do you believe that a person can go his or her entire life without committing a personal sin? If so, how? If not, how does that person’s personal sin effect that relationship with God?

I do beleive we are born in a “right” relationship with God, in that we are born sinless.
Salvation is possible provided individuals commit no personal sin, because of the atonement.
Now the second part of your question…is it possible to live a sinless life? There has only been one person that has done that and that was Jesus Christ, and I do not believe there will be another.
As with any sin, personal sin puts us at odds with God, and will keep us out of His presence. However, repentance makes it possible to be washed clean of our sin.

Maybe I’m not following you altogether, but it sounds to me like you and Zerinus are suggesting that Christ is important because He is the example that we must follow to remain righteous, but that His grace in our life (through sacraments, ordinances, or some other means) is not needed for one to go to heaven. Is this right? Please share your point of view.

Not quite right. Jesus Christ is our example, yes, and it is His teachings that we must follow to remain righteous, yes, but since we all will sin at some point in our lives, the sacraments, and ordinances are required to keep us right with God.
It is because of the Atonement that those that have committed no sin will get to “heaven”, such as babies and young children.

I suppose another way to ask you the question is: Can you clarify what role you see Jesus Christ as playing with respect to an individual person’s salvation, beyond the Atonement. Is it just His example? Is it his grace and, if so, how do we receive it? Or is it something altogether different that I missed.

I look forward to your response.

Peace,
Robert

When you ask what role Jesus plays with respect to an individual’s salvation beyond the atonement…well I’m not sure I follow. The Atonement is no small thing…it encompasses His mortal life, death, and resurrection, it is our path back to the Father.
It is because of His love for us that He offered Himself as a sacrifice. It is because of His example (ie living a perfect life) that He could complete the Atonement at all. It is because of His grace that the Atonement is offered to all that would receive it.
To receive His grace is as simple as obeying His commandments and following His teachings(easy to say anyway…).

P.S. My son was a bagpiper in his HS band, so love the reference

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Dear FOTW;

Thanks for the response.

That is a good question…and hopefully I can give a good answer. As lobsided as it may seem, it really isn’t. Yes there is a lot of sin and temptation in this world, but there are ways to get beyond them. Genesis states that man can know between good and evil. That is half the battle…to know good and to know evil. The other half is to make the right choice. Easy in theory, but not so much in practice. If we do make a bad choice, there is a way to undo that choice - repentance. There is as much opportunity to repent as there are ways to sin.

I think this is an interesting comment. I think it is actually closer to the Catholic positions than some protestant positions that would say we can do nothing good at all, and we are either saved or not saved. However, I think your comment diverges from the Catholic position insofar as the Catholic would say we lack the ability to choose the good absent the grace of Christ. Thus, the only good we do is done in and through Him. I’m not sure if you would agree with that, but I certainly don’t doubt your stated commitment to follow Christ’s example.
FOTW:

As far as being “dead” to sin, well, even after baptism we can still make a wrong choice and sin, so I’m not sure how that fits with your definition of being “dead” to sin.

Being “dead to sin” does not mean we lose the free will to commit sin. Rather, it means we are, reborn to life in Christ. It is a statement that acknowledges baptism’s removal of the removal of the “stain” of original sin and the restoration of a right relationship with God.
FOTW:

I do beleive we are born in a “right” relationship with God, in that we are born sinless. Salvation is possible provided individuals commit no personal sin, because of the atonement.

We would part company - doctrinally - as to the first part. We believe that, because we have inherited the effects of original sin, we need baptism (as the normative sacrament) to restore to a right relationship with God - which is necessary for heaven. However, we also believe that all persons are born without “personal sin” such that infants who die before committing personal sins would not be “damned.” We also believe that absent the grace of God, one cannot be (or remain) justified. Thus, a man in his natural state is going to commit personal sin, which is - as a practical matter - similar to your own belief.
FOTW:

Now the second part of your question…is it possible to live a sinless life? There has only been one person that has done that and that was Jesus Christ, and I do not believe there will be another.

Catholics would say there were two, Christ and his mother. But that’s a topic for another thread.
FOTW:

As with any sin, personal sin puts us at odds with God, and will keep us out of His presence. However, repentance makes it possible to be washed clean of our sin.

Agreed. However, Catholics believe the normative method for obtaining this forgiveness (after baptism) is the sacrament of reconciliation (sometimes called confession).
FOTW:

When you ask what role Jesus plays with respect to an individual’s salvation beyond the atonement…well I’m not sure I follow. The Atonement is no small thing…it encompasses His mortal life, death, and resurrection, it is our path back to the Father. It is because of His love for us that He offered Himself as a sacrifice. It is because of His example (ie living a perfect life) that He could complete the Atonement at all. It is because of His grace that the Atonement is offered to all that would receive it.
To receive His grace is as simple as obeying His commandments and following His teachings (easy to say anyway…).

What I was asking was what role does Jesus Christ play in the present life of the average LDS member, beyond the ordinance of baptism? Is he praying to Jesus Christ for the grace to overcome personal sin? Is he cultivating a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, asking Him to remove the occasion of sin, etc.

P.S. My son was a bagpiper in his HS band, so love the reference

 

[KathleenGee]

Zerinus – where in the Catholic Catechism does it say infants are spiritually dead? Or stating that unborn or infants are condemned to hell???

That is not the sentiment of true religion.

What about all those aborted or miscarried, or those unborn human beings severely deformed??? My friend was in medical school and a text was showing pictures of miscarriages…one had one eye cover practically the whole face…what about these?

The Church pondered this with the idea of limbo…but it was not a definitive conviction of faith.

God made us good and with the grace to be in friendship with Him.

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus – where in the Catholic Catechism does it say infants are spiritually dead? Or stating that unborn or infants are condemned to hell???

That is not the sentiment of true religion.

I don’t know why you folks keep telling me these things. Go and tell it to SteveVH. He is the one making those claims. I am merely replying to him. It looks like you Catholics don’t know half of the time what you believe.

 

[KathleenGee]

Really.

Do you know that different people are drawn to different things in the same text???