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

[RebeccaJ]

OK then, once again. If Adam and Eve had not sinned and remained in the Garden, in the presence of God, so too would their children. By their sin, all the children of our First Parents were cut off from the presence of God. In Bible terms, this is the loss of an inheritence, that was ours, but was lost by the actions of our parents.

If you don’t think that you are subject to this loss because of the sins of Adam and Eve, well then, tell me, are you walking and talking with God, in His immediate presence as Adam and Eve did? Being removed from the presence of God was not just an earthly effect, it had eternal consequences, as removed form His presence here, we were removed from His presence forever.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, restored us to the Father. Made it possible for us to be heirs of the Kingdom of Heaven. This is made very clear in the NT, numerous times.

Baptism is required by believers to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, this is also taught in the NT. Parents baptize their children because as a family, they reflect the family of God, and as a family, the children are brought into God’s Family, the Kingdom of Heaven, through baptism. I still have no idea why anyone would have a problem with this. It is like saying you shouldn’t feed or clothe our children because they didn’t ask you to, and, that a child should not be part of a family who are joined to God. That we should leave them out. Why would anyone do this?

 

[fhansen]

Thank you for your reply. It seems to me that you are talking in too abstract terms. How does that play out for a small child for example, of whom the Lord said, “Suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven” ? (Matthew 19:14; Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16.) Are they sinners, because of the “injustice” you are talking about? Are they considered guilty in the sight of God, even though they haven’t done anything wrong? Is a newborn infant “unjust” because of the Fall of Adam? The language that Jesus used for little children doesn’t seem to bear that out. When one studies carefully everything that He said about little children, the implied message is that they are already saved. When we speak in too abstract theological terms there is a danger of losing sight of the wood for the trees, and missing the simple, basic elements of the gospel.

Your theological analysis also overlooks the element of freewill in human accountability, and that one becomes a sinner (i.e. guilty of sin) by actually doing something wrong; not just by being “born” into a “sinful condition”. Whatever that “condition” might be, “injustice” or whatever you want to call it, until that condition leads someone to actually do something that is contrary to the will of God, he cannot be considered a sinner, or guilty of sin. That is how I see it. God cannot hold someone guilty simply because of the way they are born; until, and unless, the way they are born somehow causes them to actually do something that is contrary to His will.

Yes, they’re unjust. And it’s only a matter of time before the injustice reveals itself. The innocence with which they respond to Jesus will predictably, invariably be overcome by this fact. And this why a child must be brought up with discipline and taught about God. Otherwise we should let them tell us how to run the world. People brought up without guidance generally end up lost, without moral moorings.

Do you know children who come out praising God as soon as they’re able to speak-in full blown love of him as well as neighbor? If we were born in right relationship with God, there would be no need for anyone to tell anyone else about Him. The injustice lies in the separation itself and the extent to which we prefer keeping things that way-that we prefer our way to God’s.

In Catholicism, conversion/justification is a process. I’m still unjust to the extent I don’t fully love God, i.e. to the extent I’m drawn or attached to anything other than Him first and foremost. I can convince myself that I love Him enough but it’s generally nonsense. No mind-games are necessary when a heart is truly swooned by the Lover of its soul. This is Catholic tradition-and you’ll be hard pressed to find it anywhere else.

Jesus sets a very high standard-He wants only the best for us. But people try to get around this all the time. The Reformers gave up, determining that man was totally depraved and unable to help himself in the least-the best he could do was to have righteousness imputed to him-as if God would give him laws that he was incapable of fulfilling. Others simply don’t take seriously enough Jesus’ words when He tells us our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees, the we must be perfect as out Father is perfect-or they don’t yet truly know what that means.

Yes, we must come to God as a child to his loving Father-that model, as a general principle, has served well in life to show me the simple humility with which I should approach God. But to believe that children are perfect in the way God wants them to be is naive-and doesn’t mesh with real-life experience. This world is a womb-a place of gestation for those who admit their need of being born again-*all *of us.

 

[SteveVH]

Well, actually nowadays in Catholic writings the word “guilt” is less commonly used to describe that phenomenon. They use more ambiguous terms like “we are all sinners because of the sin of Adam”. The concept of “guilt” is hidden inside that statement. You cannot be a sinner without being guilty of sin. It is only when you probe into it that it becomes clear that what they really mean is that man has become guilty because of the sin of Adam, regardless of whether he has done anything wrong himself or not.

Yes! There are explanations for those; but not for becoming guilty merely because of the sin of Adam.

Being “affected by the sin of another” is not the same thing as “becoming a sinner because of the sin of another,” which is another way of saying, “becoming guilty because of the sin of another”.

Then argue with Paul about it:

“For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”
(Rom 5:19)

Death was a condition that God had set for partaking of the forbidden fruit. Partaking of the fruit triggered the condition to take effect. God barred Adam and Eve from the tree of life, thus preventing them from living forever.

My point, zerinus, is that God said "on the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die. They surely did not die on the day they ate of it. We know that God does lie so what did he mean? He meant first of all spiritual death; physical death would follow.

In Mormon theology there is an explanation for why they didn’t die immediately. That was also part of God’s plan.

It isn’t actually. Death and sin are two different things. We accept that the consequence of the Fall was death, both temporal and spiritual; but that is not the same thing as saying that we are all made “sinners” (i.e. guilty of sin) because of the sin of Adam, regardless of whether we committed any sin ourselves or not.

"Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination toward 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, . . .

Here is an example of the “vague language” I was talking about! It does not say specifically that we are “guilty” because of the Original Sin; but if you probe it further, that is what it amounts to.

. . . a sin which is the death of the soul. Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.". (CCC par. 403)

The word “guilt” is not used in the above quote from the Catechism; but it is implied! If you probe it deeply, that is what you will end up with.

That is entirely incorrect. We participate in baptism in order to obtain a remission of sins. That is written all over the Bible. The only question here is, Which sins, committed sins, or the Original Sin? Catholics say both! We say only committed sins.

You are so focused on trying to prove deceit within the Catholic explanation of its own doctrines that you cannot engage in an intellectually honest discussion about this issue and about what the Church truly teaches. You have not even attempted to discuss the merits, or lack thereof, of my comments. If I say that we believe that the sky is blue, you will say that we secretly believe it is red. Your purpose here is not to discover truth and I can now see that you have no interest in exploring this issue together in order to arrive at a deeper understanding. You operate by avoiding those Scriptures that conflict with your doctrines, instead hurling personal insults. I was ready to forgive and forget and did my best to address this issue anew and was actually a little excited to read your response to my last post with the hope that we could actually accomplish something here. I guess I’m a slow learner. You make this very difficult.

 

[The_One_Trinity]

Then argue with Paul about it:

"For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."
(Rom 5:19)

My point, zerinus, is that God said "on the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die. They surely did not die on the day they ate of it. We know that God does lie so what did he mean? He meant first of all spiritual death; physical death would follow.

You are so focused on trying to prove deceit within the Catholic explanation of its own doctrines that you cannot engage in an intellectually honest discussion about this issue and about what the Church truly teaches. You have not even attempted to discuss the merits, or lack thereof, of my comments. If I say that we believe that the sky is blue, you will say that we secretly believe it is red. Your purpose here is not to discover truth and I can now see that you have no interest in exploring this issue together in order to arrive at a deeper understanding. You operate by avoiding those Scriptures that conflict with your doctrines, instead hurling personal insults. I was ready to forgive and forget and did my best to address this issue anew and was actually a little excited to read your response to my last post with the hope that we could actually accomplish something here. I guess I’m a slow learner. You make this very difficult.

You cant win with these people. They believe in something that is totally false. They need to go to their own forums and take all their BS doctrine with them. I know this to be true because a friend of mine who works with the Bishop (He’s a liturgust for the church) tells me that the lds church calls him all the time trying to get the correct info about the Bible and they get mad when my friend tells them no. They have no true understanding about religion other than you need to give your money to them and molest children. Oops, did I say that? Im sorry, its just that Salt Lake City has the highest rate for child predators than the whole country. And guess what, they are mormon. This is not made up, but true fact. So dont let these lds folk get you down people, they are the worst.

 

[KathleenGee]

Adam and Eve are stories that came out of Mesopotamia. The Sumerians and others had the first man story, with a name similar to Adam. What ancient people were trying to do is to explain who they were, where they came from, and where they are going: eschatology.

It can be said that the story of Adam and Eve in itself is a myth. But from such a myth, God’s truth about the human condition is spoken, however imperfectly, aka, the world being created in so many days. The ancient Jews drew from these stories. The Sumerian first man and other gods were in continual combat, gods combating each other. It is alleged that perhaps the ancient Jews had been polytheistic at one time as well. But the Jews were trying to use stories to explain their existence, good vs evil, and what is the essence of life vs death.

For all the disputes between Mormons and Catholics, be it original sin or the American Joseph Smith as final prophet, the Good God has never failed us. The answer to all human dilemma is that God has given us His Son Jesus Christ as the atonement for sin.

And if we became perfect in this life, becoming saints, we would not even need Christ.

It is our broken humanity who is in constant need of the Savior. We are in constant need of redemption that will not be complete until we share in the glorious state with Jesus Christ and all the saints in heaven. You can’t become a saint by becoming a Mormon.

 

[SteveVH]

You cant win with these people. They believe in something that is totally false. They need to go to their own forums and take all their BS doctrine with them. I know this to be true because a friend of mine who works with the Bishop (He’s a liturgust for the church) tells me that the lds church calls him all the time trying to get the correct info about the Bible and they get mad when my friend tells them no. They have no true understanding about religion other than you need to give your money to them and molest children. Oops, did I say that? Im sorry, its just that Salt Lake City has the highest rate for child predators than the whole country. And guess what, they are mormon. This is not made up, but true fact. So dont let these lds folk get you down people, they are the worst.

TheOneTrinity, there is no need to to take this tact with anyone. Your comment regarding molestation of children is completely innapropriate and about as offensive a remark as one could make.

This is, many times, a frustrating experience as I have indicated in my previous posts, but I have said more than once that I appreciate and admire the Mormons who have the courage to even be on this forum. We are here to discuss doctrine and beliefs, not to bash those who do not agree with our beliefs. You have not been here long and I warn you that if you continue to make remarks such as this your time on this forum will be short lived as the moderators will not put up with it. I will report you myself. npatrol:

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Sorry Robert, but it is your post that I find too vague to reply to. If you could speak in more concrete terms, and perhaps give specific examples of what you are talking about, I might have a better chance of understanding what you are talking about.

OK. I’ll give it another go…

You are using the term “tempted” but have not defined what you mean by the term. If by “temptation” you mean an internal struggle by one confronted with an offer to commit evil (i.e. sin), then I disagree with your conclusion that Christ was “tempted” in that way. If by “temptation” you mean that one is simply confronted with an offer to sin, then I agree that Jesus was tempted in this way. Satan brought all guns to bear on Christ and in that way Satan tempted Him in all ways that human beings are confronted with tempation.

To suggest that Jesus *entertained * (i.e. struggled with, considered the possibility of committing) the offer to commit evil (i.e. sinning) in any way is to suggest that the Second Person of the Trinity (i.e. God by Catholic understanding) could entertain the idea of performing an act that is entirely against the divine nature that Christ at all times possessed.

The above is, in a nutshell, what I said in my earlier posts.

Put another way (requested example): Do you believe that Satan could cause your Heavenly Father to contemplate for even one moment the possibility of committing an evil act? My suspicion is that the “orthodox” LDS response to this question is, “No” because LDS doctrine holds that the Father cannot commit sin because sin is evil and evil is against His divine nature - which is entirely good. (I think we both agree that God the Father cannot sin because it is against His nature)

The Catholic trinitarian position is that the Second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God, is also entirely God, and has been God eternal (without beginning or end). Christ is one in being with the Father and has the same divine nature as the father (the nature that prevents Him from committing evil). This Second Person took on second nature and was born of the Virgin Mary; thus, from the moment of the incarnation to now, He had a human nature that was subject to the same external pitfalls that all human beings are subjected to. However - and what I think the position you are taking fails to address - He did not set aside His divine nature, which (like Heavenly Father) was unable to commit sin. Thus, Jesus Christ did not struggle against Satan’s offer to commit evil. Jesus Christ, unlike you and me, had a divine nature that prevented such a thing from occurring.

My final comment was that *perhaps *the divergence in our positions comes from the fact that the LDS position on Christ’s divinity (as subordinate to the Father) is so different from the Catholic position.

I invited you to clarify your use of temptation and tempted, so that I could understand your position more clearly. If you find my second attempt too vague to address, then perhaps you should examine your own position more closely.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Well, actually nowadays in Catholic writings the word “guilt” is less commonly used to describe that phenomenon. They use more ambiguous terms like “we are all sinners because of the sin of Adam”. The concept of “guilt” is hidden inside that statement. You cannot be a sinner without being guilty of sin. It is only when you probe into it that it becomes clear that what they really mean is that man has become guilty because of the sin of Adam, regardless of whether he has done anything wrong himself or not.

This is simply an incorrect conclusion on the teaching of the Catholic Church. Original sin is defined as:

Either the sin committed by Adam as the head of the human race, or the sin he passed onto his posterity with which every human being, with the certain exception of Christ and His mother, is conceived and born. The sin of Adam is called originating original sin (originale originans); that of his descendants is originated original sin (originale originatum). Adam’s sin was personal and grave, and it affected human nature. It was personal because he freely committed it; it was grave because God imposed a serious obligation; and it affected the whole human race by depriving his progeny of the supernatural life and preternatural gifts they would have possessed on entering the world had Adam not sinned. Original sin in his descendants is personal only in the sense that the children of Adam are each personally affected, but not personal as though they had voluntarily chosen to commit the sin; it is grave in the sense that it debars a person from the beatific vision, but not grave in condemning one to hell; and it is natural only in that all human nature, except for divine intervention, has it and can have it removed only by supernatural means. (Harden, Modern Catholic Dictionary (Abridged), 1985.)

The Catholic Church teaches that although Adam was personally guilty of his original sin, you and I are personally affected as stated above, but not “guilty” - i.e. condemned to hell - for it. You’re attacking the Church based upon a false assumption here. There’s a distinction between being born without preternatural grace, and being born “guilty” of sin. That has always been understood by the Catholic Church here.

Zerinus:

Yes! There are explanations for those; but not for becoming guilty merely because of the sin of Adam.

Again, this misrepresents the Church’s teaching on Original sin. See above.

zerinus:

Being “affected by the sin of another” is not the same thing as “becoming a sinner because of the sin of another,” which is another way of saying, “becoming guilty because of the sin of another”.

I agree. All of the descendants of Adam are personally affected by his transgression. We are not condemned by it, but we bear the mark of it because he was the representative of all humanity. Our personal bearing of the affects of his sin shows the gravity of his sin, but it does not condemn us personally.

Peace,
Robert

 

[zerinus]

Yes, they’re unjust. And it’s only a matter of time before the injustice reveals itself. The innocence with which they respond to Jesus will predictably, invariably be overcome by this fact. And this why a child must be brought up with discipline and taught about God. Otherwise we should let them tell us how to run the world. People brought up without guidance generally end up lost, without moral moorings.

Do you know children who come out praising God as soon as they’re able to speak-in full blown love of him as well as neighbor? If we were born in right relationship with God, there would be no need for anyone to tell anyone else about Him. The injustice lies in the separation itself and the extent to which we prefer keeping things that way-that we prefer our way to God’s.

Thank you for your reply. On that topic I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. LDS doctrine disagrees with that position, and I agree with LDS doctrine on that issue! In Mormonism man is born innocent, and only becomes a sinner as he reaches the age of accountability and begins to sin. Then he is in need of faith, repentance, and baptism to become justified before God again. If he commits further sins thereafter, he can be forgiven through genuine repentance and confession. Children are saved already; they have no need of faith, repentance, or baptism to be saved. The Atonement of Christ redeems them unconditionally, and they are “whole from the foundation of the world” (Moses 6:54). That is what Mormonism teaches.

In Catholicism, conversion/justification is a process. I’m still unjust to the extent I don’t fully love God, i.e. to the extent I’m drawn or attached to anything other than Him first and foremost. I can convince myself that I love Him enough but it’s generally nonsense. No mind-games are necessary when a heart is truly swooned by the Lover of its soul. This is Catholic tradition-and you’ll be hard pressed to find it anywhere else.

I am inclined to agree with that. I can’t find anything in there that I could seriously disagree with.

Jesus sets a very high standard-He wants only the best for us. But people try to get around this all the time.

I agree.

The Reformers gave up, determining that man was totally depraved and unable to help himself in the least-the best he could do was to have righteousness imputed to him-as if God would give him laws that he was incapable of fulfilling. Others simply don’t take seriously enough Jesus’ words when He tells us our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees, the we must be perfect as out Father is perfect-or they don’t yet truly know what that means.

I can’t say I disagree with that either.

Yes, we must come to God as a child to his loving Father-that model, as a general principle, has served well in life to show me the simple humility with which I should approach God.

Except that the teachings of Jesus go further than that. He doesn’t just say that children set us a model that we can emulate. He says, “suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven”. He says that little children are there already. They have already made it to heaven. “Of such is the kingdom of heaven”. He doesn’t use children as a metaphor, but as an example of a saved being.

But to believe that children are perfect in the way God wants them to be is naive-and doesn’t mesh with real-life experience. This world is a womb-a place of gestation for those who admit their need of being born again-all of us.

Except that children seem to be excluded!

Okay, I think I know where you are coming from. A lot of what you say about the “fallen man” is actually correct, and doesn’t really disagree with Mormon doctrine. Take a look at this quote from the Book of Mormon:

Mosiah 3:

19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

That is saying more or less what you are saying (see further quotes given in post #16). But there is more to it than that! For the Mormon theological position on the fate of children see quotes given in post #84. I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree on that one. I don’t think there is much more that I can say from a purely biblical reference point that can be more persuasive than what I have already said. Mormon theology is not base on the Bible alone of course. We have additional revelation which gives us additional insight into the gospel that might be difficult to prove form the Bible alone. We believe those revelations are true, and that is what we base our doctrine on, as well as the Bible.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Thank you for your reply. On that topic I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. LDS doctrine disagrees with that position, and I agree with LDS doctrine on that issue! In Mormonism man is born innocent, and only becomes a sinner as he reaches the age of accountability and begins to sin. Then he is in need of faith, repentance, and baptism to become justified before God again. If he commits further sins thereafter, he can be forgiven through genuine repentance and confession. Children are saved already; they have no need of faith, repentance, or baptism to be saved. The Atonement of Christ redeems them unconditionally, and they are “whole from the foundation of the world” (Moses 6:54). That is what Mormonism teaches.

Hello again Zerinus;

I have another problem with what you have stated here. It seems inconsistent. If the Atonement removed original sin, so that all human beings are made “whole from the foundation of the world” then in theory one could be born, live a perfectly sin-free life, and go to heaven without ever needing baptism. Maybe you are saying something less than this (again it is not clear), but what you appear to be saying here is that baptism is available for those of us who commit personal sins, but (at least in theory) it is now possible to live a life free from sin because the Atonement has made it so that now we are all born whole. Is this really what Mormonism teaches, or is baptism required because humanity is still suffering the effects of Adam’s sin?

zerinus:

Except that the teachings of Jesus go further than that. He doesn’t just say that children set us a model that we can emulate. He says, “suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven”. He says that little children are there already. They have already made it to heaven. “Of such is the kingdom of heaven”. He doesn’t use children as a metaphor, but as an example of a saved being.

This seems consistent with the claims you make above. Is there no flaw whatsoever remaining in a human descendant of Adam? If so, would Mormons really say that every conception is now an immaculate conception? I’m not sure if every Mormon would agree with you about that, but would like to hear from some others.

zerinus:

Okay, I think I know where you are coming from. A lot of what you say about the “fallen man” is actually correct, and doesn’t really disagree with Mormon doctrine. Take a look at this quote from the Book of Mormon:

Mosiah 3:

19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

Now this seems to conflict with what you say above, and suggests that human (natural) man is still fallen absent some change that must take place (through baptism or otherwise).

Peace,
Robert

 

[SteveVH]

The Catholic trinitarian position is that the Second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God, is also entirely God, and has been God eternal (without beginning or end). Christ is one in being with the Father and has the same divine nature as the father (the nature that prevents Him from committing evil). This Second Person took on second nature and was born of the Virgin Mary; thus, from the moment of the incarnation to now, He had a human nature that was subject to the same external pitfalls that all human beings are subjected to. However - and what I think the position you are taking fails to address - He did not set aside His divine nature, which (like Heavenly Father) was unable to commit sin. Thus, Jesus Christ did not struggle against Satan’s offer to commit evil. Jesus Christ, unlike you and me, had a divine nature that prevented such a thing from occurring.

 

[zerinus]

Then argue with Paul about it:

"For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." (Rom 5:19)

I think I have already answered that one, so I shouldn’t need to answer it again.

My point, zerinus, is that God said "on the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die. They surely did not die on the day they ate of it.

Well, in a way they did. He told them, “for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return” (Genesis 3:19); and He barred them from the tree of life. I don’t think “in the day” means “on the very day”. I think it means that form that day you will become subject to the process of death.

We know that God does [not! ] lie so what did he mean? He meant first of all spiritual death; physical death would follow.

We agree with that. We believe that man suffered a spiritual and physical death. But I am not sure what conclusion you are drawing from that.

You are so focused on trying to prove deceit within the Catholic explanation of its own doctrines that you cannot engage in an intellectually honest discussion about this issue and about what the Church truly teaches.

I said no such thing, and if you intend to carry on an intelligent discussion you had better stop making such silly accusations against me.

You have not even attempted to discuss the merits, or lack thereof, of my comments. . . .

Okay let’s look more closely at the quote you had given:

“Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination toward 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, . . .”

Take a closer look at the phrase underlined. What does it mean to “transmit” a sin to someone? A sin is something that whoever commits it makes him or her guilty of that sin. You can’t separate guilt from sin. You can’t commit a sin without becoming guilty of that sin. Now please explain to me how can someone’s “sin” be “transmitted” to someone else without making that someone else guilty of that sin?

Your quote then continues as follows:

“. . . a sin which is the death of the soul. Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.” (CCC par. 403)

Take another closer look at the underlined phrase. If “tiny infants” need to be baptised for the remission of that transmitted sin, then that infant is considered guilty of that sin which was “transmitted” to him, but which he never committed, no?

 

[zerinus]

OK. I’ll give it another go…

You are using the term “tempted” but have not defined what you mean by the term. If by “temptation” you mean an internal struggle by one confronted with an offer to commit evil (i.e. sin), then I disagree with your conclusion that Christ was “tempted” in that way. If by “temptation” you mean that one is simply confronted with an offer to sin, then I agree that Jesus was tempted in this way. Satan brought all guns to bear on Christ and in that way Satan tempted Him in all ways that human beings are confronted with tempation.

I think that Jesus was tempted in the same way as we are, no different. Paul makes that clear in the quotes I gave in post #102. James also explains the process of temptation in the quote I gave in the same post. I don’t have a lot to add to that. That is how Jesus was tempted, and anyone else is tempted.

To suggest that Jesus *entertained * (i.e. struggled with, considered the possibility of committing) the offer to commit evil (i.e. sinning) in any way is to suggest that the Second Person of the Trinity (i.e. God by Catholic understanding) could entertain the idea of performing an act that is entirely against the divine nature that Christ at all times possessed.

The above is, in a nutshell, what I said in my earlier posts.

I think we are arguing in semantics now. Struggling to overcome temptation need not entail entertaining the possibility of committing it. You are trying to go into the “psychology of temptation,” an area in which I don’t think any of us are qualified to enter. I simply go by what the Bible teaches, that Jesus was tempted exactly as we are; and that He acquired a (fallen) physical body just like ours precisely so that He could be tempted exactly as we are, and overcome than, which we could not do for ourselves.

Put another way (requested example): Do you believe that Satan could cause your Heavenly Father to contemplate for even one moment the possibility of committing an evil act? My suspicion is that the “orthodox” LDS response to this question is, “No” because LDS doctrine holds that the Father cannot commit sin because sin is evil and evil is against His divine nature - which is entirely good. (I think we both agree that God the Father cannot sin because it is against His nature)

The Catholic trinitarian position is that the Second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God, is also entirely God, and has been God eternal (without beginning or end). Christ is one in being with the Father and has the same divine nature as the father (the nature that prevents Him from committing evil). This Second Person took on second nature and was born of the Virgin Mary; thus, from the moment of the incarnation to now, He had a human nature that was subject to the same external pitfalls that all human beings are subjected to. However - and what I think the position you are taking fails to address - He did not set aside His divine nature, which (like Heavenly Father) was unable to commit sin. Thus, Jesus Christ did not struggle against Satan’s offer to commit evil. Jesus Christ, unlike you and me, had a divine nature that prevented such a thing from occurring.

We believe that the difference between Jesus (in mortality) and the Father was that He had acquired a mortal physical body subject to the consequences of the Fall, which enabled Him to be tempted in a way that we can be, but the Father could not be. It was His (fallen) physical body that enabled Him to suffer temptation just as we are, whereas the Father could not be tempted. Jesus also now in His resurrected state is in the same situation that the Father is, meaning that He can no longer be tempted. That was the difference between the two.

My final comment was that *perhaps *the divergence in our positions comes from the fact that the LDS position on Christ’s divinity (as subordinate to the Father) is so different from the Catholic position.

I invited you to clarify your use of temptation and tempted, so that I could understand your position more clearly. If you find my second attempt too vague to address, then perhaps you should examine your own position more closely.

James has described the process of temptation in the quote I had given. That process was the same for Jesus as it was for the rest of us. See above.

 

[zerinus]

This is simply an incorrect conclusion on the teaching of the Catholic Church. Original sin is defined as:

The Catholic Church teaches that although Adam was personally guilty of his original sin, you and I are personally affected as stated above, but not “guilty” - i.e. condemned to hell - for it. You’re attacking the Church based upon a false assumption here. There’s a distinction between being born without preternatural grace, and being born “guilty” of sin. That has always been understood by the Catholic Church here.

Again, this misrepresents the Church’s teaching on Original sin. See above.

I agree. All of the descendants of Adam are personally affected by his transgression. We are not condemned by it, but we bear the mark of it because he was the representative of all humanity. Our personal bearing of the affects of his sin shows the gravity of his sin, but it does not condemn us personally.

Peace,
Robert

It seems to me you have got Catholic doctrine wrong here. My understanding of Catholic doctrine is that man needs to be baptized not only for the remission of his own sins, but of his Original Sin, and he is damned if he doesn’t. His Original Sin will damn him if he is not baptized for the remission of it.

 

[KathleenGee]

Zerinus,

I have impression of different people from various persuasions who do not understand Catholic answers given them.

People are not damned if they are not baptized.

There is the baptism of desire – those who through no fault of their own have not heard the Gospel or have had it presented to them in a manner they can understand, but nevertheless seek good and do good to others, they also are walking on the road to salvation.

There are those who have come to know Christ, want baptism, but it is not provided in their local.

There is the baptism of the blood – those who are martyred - such as on the altar of free sex, such as the unborn who are aborted, who die seeking truth and mercy.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

It seems to me you have got Catholic doctrine wrong here. My understanding of Catholic doctrine is that man needs to be baptized not only for the remission of his own sins, but of his Original Sin, and he is damned if he doesn’t. His Original Sin will damn him if he is not baptized for the remission of it.

No. I am stating accurate Catholic doctrine. You are wrong in your understanding.

The difference is an important one. One is not damned because of Original sin. One is flawed because of it - and without preternatural grace will commit personal sin leading ultimately to damnation. One is not damned because of Original sin. One is cut off from the grace that prevents us from avoiding the temptation to commit personal sins.

Baptism is the normative way in which one is initially saved from this fate. It restores that relationship with God that Adam’s sin destroyed, and allows us to continue to receive the grace that restores our relationship with God and leads to salvation.

Consider that the theological construct of the “limbo” of the infants arose because of this dilema. Unbaptized infants are guilty of no personal sin, yet their relationship with God has not been restored through the preternatural gift of baptism. Thus, they do not merit hell, but are deprived of the beatific vision due to their fallen “natural” state. While Catholic theological discourse and speculation has recently moved away from the speculation of a “limbo” state and simply leaves the fate of these infants in the hands of a loving God, the question remains precisely because Original sin (by itself) does not lead to the damnation of infants.

Peace,
Robert

P.S. - anti-Catholics would argue that the Church consigned unbaptized infants to the fires of hell by its understanding of “limbo,” but this was never the theological issue. The issue was determining where unbaptized infants would spend eternity because they did NOT merit hell, but died without the grace that restored them to a justified state.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I think that Jesus was tempted in the same way as we are, no different. Paul makes that clear in the quotes I gave in post #102. James also explains the process of temptation in the quote I gave in the same post. I don’t have a lot to add to that. That is how Jesus was tempted, and anyone else is tempted.

You’re just avoiding the distinction here.

zerinus:

I think we are arguing in semantics now. Struggling to overcome temptation need not entail entertaining the possibility of committing it. You are trying to go into the “psychology of temptation,” an area in which I don’t think any of us are qualified to enter. I simply go by what the Bible teaches, that Jesus was tempted exactly as we are; and that He acquired a (fallen) physical body just like ours precisely so that He could be tempted exactly as we are, and overcome than, which we could not do for ourselves.

I believe that herein lies the heart of the issue. Did Jesus obtain a flawed human nature or a human nature. Catholics say the latter. He obtained a human nature that was like Adam before the fall, not Adam after the fall. Hence, the early church fathers referenced Christ as the New Adam. You are confusing something here. Our human nature was intended by God to be like Adam before the fall. Hence, Christ was given that nature - immaculate (i.e. without stain of Original sin) precisely because it was Christ (the spotless unblemished Lamb of God) who was sent to Atone. He could not be the perfect sacrifice if He was blemished or stained in any way. The OT points to this deeply important necessity of our salvation. Christ came with a complete human nature to reveal to us fully what it is we are supposed to be.

zerinus:

We believe that the difference between Jesus (in mortality) and the Father was that He had acquired a mortal physical body subject to the consequences of the Fall, which enabled Him to be tempted in a way that we can be, but the Father could not be. It was His (fallen) physical body that enabled Him to suffer temptation just as we are, whereas the Father could not be tempted. Jesus also now in His resurrected state is in the same situation that the Father is, meaning that He can no longer be tempted. That was the difference between the two.

You’re back to avoiding the issue again. Yes, he was tempted in the sense that he was offered the opportunity to sin just as Adam was in the garden. But this does not mean he was “tempted” in the sense that he struggled to overcome a fallen nature. He was offered the sin of Adam while in the same immaculate state that Adam enjoyed, so He could make right what Adam did. It takes everything away to say that Jesus - the atoning sacrifice was a “blemished lamb.”

zerinus:

James has described the process of temptation in the quote I had given. That process was the same for Jesus as it was for the rest of us. See above.

I agree that James describes the process by which Jesus was faced with temptations, but I disagree to the extent you say James teaches that Jesus had to overcome an internal temptation to concede His will to a fallen human nature. Again, it comes down to how you understand the language. I personally think that your construct is a bit loose here in that regard.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Zerinus,

I have impression of different people from various persuasions who do not understand Catholic answers given them.

People are not damned if they are not baptized.

There is the baptism of desire – those who through no fault of their own have not heard the Gospel or have had it presented to them in a manner they can understand, but nevertheless seek good and do good to others, they also are walking on the road to salvation.

There are those who have come to know Christ, want baptism, but it is not provided in their local.

There is the baptism of the blood – those who are martyred - such as on the altar of free sex, such as the unborn who are aborted, who die seeking truth and mercy.

To say it another way, God gave us the sacraments as the normative way to obtain the graces necessary for salvation, including the sacrament of baptism. These sacraments are an incredible free gift to the world administered through His Church. But we further understand that Christ is not bound by the sacraments and can save whoever He desires to save. Hence, we have reason for great hope when it comes to the fate of infants who die without receiving the sacrament of baptism. This would include the more than 1,000,000 pre-born who are murdered every year in the sanctity of their mothers’ wombs through the horror of abortion.

Peace,
Robert

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes, very good illumination!

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus,

I have impression of different people from various persuasions who do not understand Catholic answers given them.

People are not damned if they are not baptized.

There is the baptism of desire – those who through no fault of their own have not heard the Gospel or have had it presented to them in a manner they can understand, but nevertheless seek good and do good to others, they also are walking on the road to salvation.

There are those who have come to know Christ, want baptism, but it is not provided in their local.

There is the baptism of the blood – those who are martyred - such as on the altar of free sex, such as the unborn who are aborted, who die seeking truth and mercy.

Those are the exceptions. I was not talking about the exceptions. I was talking about the rule. My understanding of Catholic theology is that you are damned because of the Original Sin unless it is remitted by baptism (of desire or some other kind).