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

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca is either lying thru her false teeth or was never a mormon or was totally asleep in Church.

To prove this point, I will quote from page 100 of the BOOK OF MORMON to refute her lies…

2 Nephi 25:26

" And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies THAY OUR CHILDREN MAY KNOW TO WHAY SOURCE THEY MAY LOOK FOR A REMISSION OF THEIR SINS"

2 Nephi 25:27

" Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ, and know for what end that law was given. And after the law is fulfilled in Christ, THAT THEY NOT HARDEN THEIR HEARTS against him when the law ought to be done away.

2 Nephi 25:28

" And now behold my people, ye are a stiffnecked people, wherefor I have spoken plainly unto you, that ye cannot misunderstand. And the words which I have spoken shall stand as a testimony against you for they are sufficent to teach any man the right way; FOR THE RIGHT WAY IS TO BELIVE IN CHRIST and deny him not; for by denying him ye also deny the prophets and the law"

2 Nephi 25:29

And now I behold, I say unto you THAT THE RIGHT WAY IS TO BELIVE IN CHRIST, and deny him not; and CHRIST IS THE HOLY ONE OF ISREAL, wherefore you must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might mind and strength, and your whole soul, and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.

Rebecaa, you clearly have cast dispersion on the Mormon faith and clearly this was based upon either your ignorance of the truth of what we teach our children or based on the fact that you are a willfull liar. Either way, you do stand corrected and discredited on this board.

The youth of the Mormon church are taught extensivly from the Book of Mormon as well as the Bible. While your catholic friends may be unschooled as to what Mormomism is actually all about, you have done nothing to benefit them with your lies and distortions.

I call your attention to the verses above that you will give heed to what these verses say. Regardless of what faith you belong to, you discredit it and yourself when you seek to mislead others thru your lies. It is no wonder given your complete ignorance of what Mormons teach that you would leave that Church. But you have left in ignorance and now in your gaul of bitterness you seek to spread the same ignorant venom to others.

I truly hope you are happy in your catholic faith. Perhaps than can do a better job of teaching you the principles of honesty and truth than we did. But as to your posting on this board, until you make right your blantant lies, you stand rebuked and fully discredited. You are nothing more than another bitter anti mormon at this point. Repent.

Deserwest, I asked a question, if you can’t answer it, there is no reason to be as rude as you are being.

Maybe I should answer my own question. Do I know nothing about Mormonism, or am I a perfect expert? I am neither of those things. I do however understand the differences in what Mormons teach about Jesus as compared to what Catholics teach, as it is central to our differences, while ironically at the same time, it is Jesus Who is central to what we have in common.

So it isn’t all that simple, and when I ask a question, I ask it seriously. Maybe you could give me the benefit of the doubt?

So, I reported your calling me liar, several times over, as that is against forum rules. Personally, I forgive you.

 

[SteveVH]

Adam’s sin brought death into the world, made all of us subject to disease, sickness, and vicissitudes of life; it brought on us spiritual death, so that we are cut off from the presence of God (which is what spiritual death means in our theology); and made mankind subject to sin and the temptations of the devil. I gave a number of quotes from LDS Scripture in post #16 of which the first one is probably the most illustrative:

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.

And here is another which I had forgotten to mention:

Ether 3:

2 . . . for we know that thou art holy and dwellest in the heavens, and that we are unworthy before thee; because of the fall our natures have become evil continually; nevertheless, O Lord, thou hast given us a commandment that we must call upon thee, that from thee we may receive according to our desires.

That is what the Fall caused to happen to all of us. And it is undone by the Atonement of Jesus Christ as explained in that verse, and through the sacraments of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Another interesting quote is Moses 6:47-68. It is a bit lengthy, so I gave a link rather than give a direct quote. It pretty much covers most aspects of the Mormon theology of the Fall. Mormon revelation also teaches that if Adam and Eve had not fallen, they could not have had children; but it does not explain why.

With regard to the fate of children (and those who are not accountable for their actions); and who needs baptism and who doesn’t (and why), consider these verses:

Moroni 8:

12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; . . .

22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing.

In the NT baptism is made conditional on repentance. That is made very clear in the text of the NT. Therefore somebody who cannot repent because he hasn’t done anything to repent of, like infants; or who is not “under the law,” and therefore is not conscious of any wrongs that he needs to repent of, doesn’t need baptism.

I would rather explain theology by giving direct quotes from authoritative sources and let you judge them for yourself, rather than embark on lengthy theological treatise. Have a look at those, and if they don’t answer all questions feel free to ask, and I will do my best to answer any remaining questions.

Mormon revelation teaches that partaking of the forbidden fruit was indeed a sin, because it went directly against God’s commandment to them not to partake of the fruit; but that it was a necessary and unavoidable part of the plan of salvation that God had predetermined from the beginning. To understand the Mormon theological position on that more clearly you need to understand why why God had commanded them not to partake of the fruit, and why the penalty of death was affixed to partaking of the fruit. Since I have had this discussion with Catholics several times before (and knew it wouldn’t be the last!), I have written a blog post to explain it, which you can read here. Have a look at that, and if you have further questions feel free to ask, and I will try to answer them for you as best I can. Here is another article I wrote regarding the Mormon theological position on the Fall, which you may find helpful. Have a look at those, and I will answer any remaining questions.

Thank you. I’ll check them out when I have some more time. One question that arises immediately is why do there not seem to be any quotes from biblical scripture?

 

[SteveVH]

Here is what it states on lds.org:

Because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, all people live in a fallen condition, separated from God and subject to physical death. However, we are not condemned by what many call the “original sin.” In other words, we are not accountable for Adam’s transgression in the Garden of Eden. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression”

Through the Atonement, the Savior paid the price for the transgression in the Garden of Eden (see Moses 6:53). He has given us the assurance of resurrection and the promise that, based on our faithfulness, we can return to dwell in the presence of our Heavenly Father forever.

For a scriptural reference, see 1 Corinthians 15: 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. The effects of Adam’s transgression are washed away with the atonement for ALL people, even those that are not baptized or believe. Therefore, then only thing that would deny us from being in the presence of the Father is our own behavior here.

I noticed that in the quote:

“Because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, all people live in a fallen condition, separated from God and subject to physical death.”

Spiritual death is not mentioned. Is it addressed elsewhere?

 

[zerinus]

Thank you. I’ll check them out when I have some more time. One question that arises immediately is why do there not seem to be any quotes from biblical scripture?

We don’t believe there is a contradiction between biblical quotes and LDS references; but LDS scripture provides additional information on the subject that enhances our understanding of the biblical references. We accept everything that is in the Bible plus additional info provided in modern revelation.

 

[zerinus]

I noticed that in the quote:

Spiritual death is not mentioned. Is it addressed elsewhere?

It does teach spiritual death. Here is the quote:

Because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, all people live in a fallen condition, separated from God and subject to physical death. Source.

“Separated from God” is the Mormon way of saying spiritual death. Those are very brief explanatory notes intended for general public most of whom are not going to be clever theologians. See the source of the quote.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RJ,

I assure you that LDS children are taught and also know innately that they need Jesus and that He loves them, as they are. They have no fears about those concepts, if that’s what you mean. They have faith in Him, and feel His love in their lives.

Neither are they taught to be baptized out of a sense of “fear” of “what if they don’t choose that step in their lives.” They choose that step out of love for Him and out of sincerity in following Him.

Nor do their parents “fear” about God working in the lives of their children, day by day with guidance and help. It is an inter-covenant relationship–God guides the parents in teaching their children, and guides the children individually in making choices in their lives, not perfectly, but with knowledge that repentance and change, learning and growth are parts of life and are blessings of this life. The parents and the children know that the Savior, Jesus Christ is central to these blessings in their lives.

So, why deny your own children baptism?

 

[ParkerD]

So, why deny your own children baptism?

RJ,
If you mean why don’t the LDS baptize children against their will, then you haven’t been following–the children choose to be baptized of their own accord. No one is “denying” their children baptism–they are letting them choose and make a covenant with the Lord and Savior on their own, by a thought-out choice.

 

[flyonthewall]

I noticed that in the quote:

Spiritual death is not mentioned. Is it addressed elsewhere?

As Zerinus pointed out, separation from God is spiritual death.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RJ,
If you mean why don’t the LDS baptize children against their will, then you haven’t been following–the children choose to be baptized of their own accord. No one is “denying” their children baptism–they are letting them choose and make a covenant with the Lord and Savior on their own, by a thought-out choice.

No, I mean if you want your children to know about Jesus, why don’t you “suffer the little children to come unto him”?

 

[ParkerD]

No, I mean if you want your children to know about Jesus, why don’t you “suffer the little children to come unto him”?

Oh–OK–“and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.” (Mark 10:13-16)

So here was a learning experience for the Apostles. They thought He should spend his time with older people than little children or infants (Luke 18:15), but He rebuked them about that misunderstanding, and “put his hands upon them, and blessed them.”

In the first place, if the Apostles had been taught to baptize infants, then of course they would have either taken the infants and baptized them when they were being brought into the midst of the Savior, or they would have watched Him baptize the infants. But instead, with not the slightest misunderstanding possible, we read that Jesus “put his hands upon them, and blessed them.” He also taught, “of such is the kingdom of God”.

They (infants or little children) were that way (“of such is the kingdom of God”) already. They didn’t need baptism to become that way.

As you know perfectly well, the LDS do indeed “bless them” in terms of infants, and it happens usually in the service during the first Sunday of each month when there is an infant there for the first time and the parents have desired the blessing for their infant, and it is done by the authority of the priesthood (often by the child’s own father or grandfather) and in Jesus’ name.

So we do “suffer the little children to come unto him” in exactly the same way that He taught it should be done and showed it should be done.

Thanks for helping clarify for all those who may not have known about this practice, so that others could visualize the distinction between being “blessed” and being “baptized” in their mind’s eye.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Oh–OK–“and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.” (Mark 10:13-16)

So here was a learning experience for the Apostles. They thought He should spend his time with older people than little children or infants (Luke 18:15), but He rebuked them about that misunderstanding, and “put his hands upon them, and blessed them.”

In the first place, if the Apostles had been taught to baptize infants, then of course they would have either taken the infants and baptized them when they were being brought into the midst of the Savior, or they would have watched Him baptize the infants. But instead, with not the slightest misunderstanding possible, we read that Jesus “put his hands upon them, and blessed them.” He also taught, “of such is the kingdom of God”.

They (infants or little children) were that way (“of such is the kingdom of God”) already. They didn’t need baptism to become that way.

As you know perfectly well, the LDS do indeed “bless them” in terms of infants, and it happens usually in the service during the first Sunday of each month when there is an infant there for the first time and the parents have desired the blessing for their infant, and it is done by the authority of the priesthood (often by the child’s own father or grandfather) and in Jesus’ name.

So we do “suffer the little children to come unto him” in exactly the same way that He taught it should be done and showed it should be done.

Thanks for helping clarify for all those who may not have known about this practice, so that others could visualize the distinction between being “blessed” and being “baptized” in their mind’s eye.

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.)

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

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.

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.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Before the alleged Mormon Apostasy Christians that came through the faith in Catholic families were all baptized as children. As the scriptures attest whole families were baptized. Because baptism was required these families naturally wanted there children to be baptized as soon as possible for the removal of original sin and the receiving of the Holy Spirit within them. There were no competing faiths. One faith, one baptism.

This was not questioned as Rebecca has pointed out. It was simply fact.

As to the age of reason this makes no sense because even those who can never reason because of certain disabilities are baptized in the same way children are baptized.

It is a beautiful time to watch as an infant is marked with the sign of the cross and all witnesses know that this one has just been received into the whole Christian family, but most importantly has been given up to Jesus and received by Him. It is you the Mormons who are bringing a different Gospel other than the one preached, the one we have received down through the centuries.

Something to ponder

 

[flyonthewall]

Before the alleged Mormon Apostasy Christians that came through the faith in Catholic families were all baptized as children. As the scriptures attest whole families were baptized. Because baptism was required these families naturally wanted there children to be baptized as soon as possible for the removal of original sin and the receiving of the Holy Spirit within them. There were no competing faiths. One faith, one baptism.

This was not questioned as Rebecca has pointed out. It was simply fact.

As to the age of reason this makes no sense because even those who can never reason because of certain disabilities are baptized in the same way children are baptized.

It is a beautiful time to watch as an infant is marked with the sign of the cross and all witnesses know that this one has just been received into the whole Christian family, but most importantly has been given up to Jesus and received by Him. It is you the Mormons who are bringing a different Gospel other than the one preached, the one we have received down through the centuries.

Something to ponder

Except that “original sin” is nullified through the atonement. Original sin is not something we need to be baptized for as baptism is only for the sins we commit. Tell me…what sin has a newborn babe committed?
If, as you state, we need to baptize infants to remove “original sin”, then the scriptures are wrong and we are condemned by something we never did.

For a scriptural reference, see 1 Corinthians 15: 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
The effects of Adam’s transgression are washed away with the atonement for ALL people, even those that are not baptized or believe. Therefore, then only thing that would deny us from being in the presence of the Father is our own behavior here.

 

[SteveVH]

It does teach spiritual death. Here is the quote:

“Separated from God” is the Mormon way of saying spiritual death. Those are very brief explanatory notes intended for general public most of whom are not going to be clever theologians. See the source of the quote.

We would have no disagreement that sin separates us from God and I do see that it is included in the statement you gave. However, we would probably differ in that we believe we are born spiritually dead due to the sin of Adam. We require Baptism in order to obtain spiritual life, which is the purpose of infant baptism. It raises a question in my mind as to when Mormons believe that this spiritual death occurs? If you are not born spiritually dead, in which case infant baptism would be pointless, then at which point do you become spiritually dead? Is it upon the commission of one’s first sin? That would be my impression from our previous conversations, but feel free to correct me.

Through baptism, God infuses supernatural life into the one receiving it, regardless of his or her awareness. In the case of infants, God honors the desire of the parents to give their child spiritual life as this is His desire as well. This practice is very old. Paul even speaks of baptism as taking the place of circumcision. Through circumcision, a Jewish male, as an infant, entered into the covenant made with Abraham. Through Baptism, we enter into the New and everlasting Covenant made by Jesus Christ with all of humanity. If God, who made the covenant with Abraham, would accept eight day old infants into His family through circumcision, why would He not do the same with Baptism?

 

[SteveVH]

Except that “original sin” is nullified through the atonement. Original sin is not something we need to be baptized for as baptism is only for the sins we commit. Tell me…what sin has a newborn babe committed?
If, as you state, we need to baptize infants to remove “original sin”, then the scriptures are wrong and we are condemned by something we never did.

For a scriptural reference, see 1 Corinthians 15: 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
The effects of Adam’s transgression are washed away with the atonement for ALL people, even those that are not baptized or believe. Therefore, then only thing that would deny us from being in the presence of the Father is our own behavior here.

Flyonthewall, I see huge differences in our understanding of the atonement. When Christ, through His suffering and death, made atonement for our sins, He made it possible for all to enter heaven, but this does not constitute a guarantee. For one to be justified, he must accept God’s righteousness, in other words, there must be a conversion, an acceptance of God’s forgiveness, so that justification is not just the remission of sins but also an interior renewal. Baptized infants, while receiving spiritual life as a completely gratuitous gift from God, must, as they reach the age of reason, continue to grow in the life of God. It is why the parents make a promise to raise their child in the faith. Otherwise, the grace received through baptism may be lost through the commission of serious sin.

 

[catholic-rcia]

What mother gives birth to her child and says “Today I give birth to you but later in your life you will decide whether I am your mother or not”
No, this child is this mothers child and nothing can change this. How much more is this a Child of Christ? Born into the family of believers?

Except that “original sin” is nullified through the atonement. Original sin is not something we need to be baptized for as baptism is only for the sins we commit. Tell me…what sin has a newborn babe committed?

You are bringing forth another gospel apart from the one Christ has given us.
What newborn baby has ever escaped the effects of original sin? If a baby did not have original sin this baby would never die, yet babies do die, some soon after birth. If original sin was taken away at the death of Christ then why do babies still die? Even though they are infants they also suffer pain. What kind of God would allow a newborn to suffer pain if original sin did not exist? Christ did die to save us but we have to go through Him to get to the Father.

If, as you state, we need to baptize infants to remove “original sin”, then the scriptures are wrong and we are condemned by something we never did.

***Rather the scripture is very clear. We are of the human race all connected together, we are not apart from one another. In this we all have inherited original sin together as a fallen human family. ***

For a scriptural reference, see 1 Corinthians 15: 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

***Yes, we are baptized into Christ’ death in order to rise in Christ. His atonement made this possible. Adam being creature could not accomplish for us what only God can accomplish. Our life was not found in Adam, it is found in Christ. ***

---

The effects of Adam’s transgression are washed away with the atonement for ALL people, even those that are not baptized or believe. Therefore, then only thing that would deny us from being in the presence of the Father is our own behavior here.

***Are you saying we do not need baptism? ***

***All people who accept the atonement as a whole family, and our baptized into Christ’s death can be saved saved. The only thing that can deny us from being with God after that is a refusal to accept our position in creation, thus denying the oneness, the greatness, of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Our own behavior after we are baptized does play a major part in whether we accept our God or not. God never leaves us, yet we have the choice to leave Him. We as Catholics go to confession to renew the gifts we received at Baptism. ***

 

[zerinus]

We would have no disagreement that sin separates us from God and I do see that it is included in the statement you gave. However, we would probably differ in that we believe we are born spiritually dead due to the sin of Adam. We require Baptism in order to obtain spiritual life, which is the purpose of infant baptism.

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

Moroni 8

12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; . . .

22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. . . .

The New Testament also seems to bear this out, in additional to the scriptures previously given:

Matthew 18:

10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

It raises a question in my mind as to when Mormons believe that this spiritual death occurs? If you are not born spiritually dead, in which case infant baptism would be pointless, then at which point do you become spiritually dead? Is it upon the commission of one’s first sin? That would be my impression from our previous conversations, but feel free to correct me.

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”.

Through baptism, God infuses supernatural life into the one receiving it, regardless of his or her awareness.

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

In the case of infants, God honors the desire of the parents to give their child spiritual life as this is His desire as well. This practice is very old. Paul even speaks of baptism as taking the place of circumcision. Through circumcision, a Jewish male, as an infant, entered into the covenant made with Abraham.

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.

Through Baptism, we enter into the New and everlasting Covenant made by Jesus Christ with all of humanity.

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.

If God, who made the covenant with Abraham, would accept eight day old infants into His family through circumcision, why would He not do the same with Baptism?

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).

 

[flyonthewall]

Flyonthewall, I see huge differences in our understanding of the atonement. When Christ, through His suffering and death, made atonement for our sins, He made it possible for all to enter heaven, but this does not constitute a guarantee. For one to be justified, he must accept God’s righteousness, in other words, there must be a conversion, an acceptance of God’s forgiveness, so that justification is not just the remission of sins but also an interior renewal. Baptized infants, while receiving spiritual life as a completely gratuitous gift from God, must, as they reach the age of reason, continue to grow in the life of God. It is why the parents make a promise to raise their child in the faith. Otherwise, the grace received through baptism may be lost through the commission of serious sin.

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.

 

[flyonthewall]

What mother gives birth to her child and says “Today I give birth to you but later in your life you will decide whether I am your mother or not”
No, this child is this mothers child and nothing can change this. How much more is this a Child of Christ? Born into the family of believers?

Not quite sure I follow…could you elaborate?

You are bringing forth another gospel apart from the one Christ has given us.
What newborn baby has ever escaped the effects of original sin? If a baby did not have original sin this baby would never die, yet babies do die, some soon after birth. If original sin was taken away at the death of Christ then why do babies still die? Even though they are infants they also suffer pain. What kind of God would allow a newborn to suffer pain if original sin did not exist? Christ did die to save us but we have to go through Him to get to the Father

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.

Rather the scripture is very clear. We are of the human race all connected together, we are not apart from one another. In this we all have inherited original sin together as a fallen human family.

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.

Yes, we are baptized into Christ’ death in order to rise in Christ. His atonement made this possible. Adam being creature could not accomplish for us what only God can accomplish. Our life was not found in Adam, it is found in Christ.

Are you saying we do not need baptism?

Baptism is for the remission of sin, sin which we commit. Telll me, what sin has a newborn babe committed?
As we grow and live in this environment, sin enters our heart to one extent or another, but we are not born with sin.

All people who accept the atonement as a whole family, and our baptized into Christ’s death can be saved saved. The only thing that can deny us from being with God after that is a refusal to accept our position in creation, thus denying the oneness, the greatness, of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Our own behavior after we are baptized does play a major part in whether we accept our God or not. God never leaves us, yet we have the choice to leave Him. We as Catholics go to confession to renew the gifts we received at Baptism.

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

 

[zerinus]

Flyonthewall, I see huge differences in our understanding of the atonement. When Christ, through His suffering and death, made atonement for our sins, He made it possible for all to enter heaven, but this does not constitute a guarantee. For one to be justified, he must accept God’s righteousness, in other words, there must be a conversion, an acceptance of God’s forgiveness, so that justification is not just the remission of sins but also an interior renewal.

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.

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.

Baptized infants, while receiving spiritual life as a completely gratuitous gift from God, must, as they reach the age of reason, continue to grow in the life 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.

It is why the parents make a promise to raise their child in the faith. Otherwise, the grace received through baptism may be lost through the commission of serious sin.

I am glad that Catholic parents promise to raise their children in the faith. Mormons too are commanded in their scriptures to raise their children in the faith. When the children reach the age of accountability they begin to become responsible for their actions, and are in need of repentance and baptism etc.