B
BartBurk
Guest
I am not convinced the Mormon understanding of original sin is that much different than the Catholic understanding. Mormons essentially have the same understanding of original sin that the Eastern Orthodox have. Eastern Orthodox don’t believe that we inherit guilt because of Adam’s transgression either. Mormons believe Christ’s atonement negates the punishment due everyone because of Adam’s transgression, but does not negate the results of Adam’s transgression, death and sin. Because of that Mormons would say we can only be punished for our own sins and not for Adam’s sin. In some ways that actually seems more just than the Augustinian model which the Western Church followed. Mormons would agree that all those who have obtained the age of accountability have sinned just as Catholics believe. It is interesting to me that Mormons and Catholics both believe that we are only culpable for our personal sins after reaching the age of accountability which is approximately the same age in both camps.
I guess the question boils down to an argument over the necessity of infant baptism. The Eastern Orthodox baptize infants even though they have similar views on original sin as the Mormons do. Perhaps we Catholics should emphasize the grace which comes through baptism more than simply the covering of Adam’s transgression. This grace opens the gate to the sacraments of confirmation, the Eucharist and reconciliation all of which together allow us to gain forgiveness for our personal sins. It seems sinful to me to deny that grace to a newborn baby.
I think the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405, lends weight to that belief: “Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle."
Baptism opens people to the life of grace which was wounded by Adam’s sin. It erases original sin, but not the results of nature. I guess Mormons would say that Christ’s atonement erased original sin rather than attributing it to any act of ours, but would agree that “the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.” The argument really boils down to an argument over just how far Christ’s atonement extends. Mormons would say Christ’s atonement extends to all mankind – the Mormons seem to put more stock in Paul’s statement that “… as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.”
Did Christ’s atonement extend to aborted babies, unbaptized babies and young children, all who are without personal sin? That’s the question at issue here.
I guess the question boils down to an argument over the necessity of infant baptism. The Eastern Orthodox baptize infants even though they have similar views on original sin as the Mormons do. Perhaps we Catholics should emphasize the grace which comes through baptism more than simply the covering of Adam’s transgression. This grace opens the gate to the sacraments of confirmation, the Eucharist and reconciliation all of which together allow us to gain forgiveness for our personal sins. It seems sinful to me to deny that grace to a newborn baby.
I think the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405, lends weight to that belief: “Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle."
Baptism opens people to the life of grace which was wounded by Adam’s sin. It erases original sin, but not the results of nature. I guess Mormons would say that Christ’s atonement erased original sin rather than attributing it to any act of ours, but would agree that “the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.” The argument really boils down to an argument over just how far Christ’s atonement extends. Mormons would say Christ’s atonement extends to all mankind – the Mormons seem to put more stock in Paul’s statement that “… as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.”
Did Christ’s atonement extend to aborted babies, unbaptized babies and young children, all who are without personal sin? That’s the question at issue here.
