The Great Apostasy Debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter tkdnick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
cestusdei,

chariy tom has been on these threads from day one. i don’t think you or anyone can change his mind because he is out of touch with reality. he’s familiar with all of damning evidence against mormonism. he bases his conviction on feelings and not on observation as a rational person would.
 
40.png
tkdnick:
I was confused before. So what you’re saying is that there is evidence in the early church that suggests both infant baptism and not infant baptism.
I am saying that “original sin” is clearly a fifth century development or invention. I am saying that the case for pedobaptism is much more balanced. There is not doubt that when Tertullian wrote the practice of infant baptism existed, but he did not encourage it. It however is difficult to explain why Early Christians would decide to baptize infants if Christ and the Apostles did not. So while I do not see infant baptism as strongly evidenced in the Bible, I also cannot offer a GOOD/STRONG reason this perversion would creep into the church.
40.png
tkdnick:
Could you show evidence?
Evidence of the LACK of “original sin” teaching? I have quoted a scholar (and I think I could find more) who claim that infant baptism was a practice in search of a theology when Augustine developed/invented the theology. I have shown Tertullian was against infant baptism (during his solidly Catholic pre-Montanist days) and did not speak of “original sin.” I have suggested that Origen postulated a pre-existence partially due to the absence of a theology to explain infant baptism. And I have challenged Tmaque to provide his Tertullian and Origen quotes that show a belief in “original sin.”

Short of quoting every word from every ECF pre-Augustine I do not know how I could show too much more. I think those who propose that someone before Augustine taught original sin should first need to provide something I can address.
40.png
tkdnick:
Well obviously in Catholic - LDS discussions, the Trinity is a big difference, so that’s always a good one to shoot for.
I think I will try to include the Trinity briefly in the way I respond to Cestusdei concerning deification.

Charity, TOm
 
Cestusdei,

Concerning deification in the early church:

First, Joseph Smith restored (or invented) this theology among a group of Protestants in the 1830’s. This was solidly outside what virtually all western Christians taught when he introduced it. The fact that LDS can point to statements from the ECF that are much closer to our beliefs than to the verbalized rejection of our beliefs by most of western Christianity until just a few decades ago is worth note in my mind.

Next, we need to define what are the differences between LDS deification and the deification evidenced in the ECF. Father Jordan Vajda defined two differences, but as best I can tell only one exists. This difference is associated with our nature. All ECF to write after Justin Martyr believed that man and God were of a wholly different nature. While the best read of LDS deification depends on Christ, depends on uniting with God, does not create equality with God, and many other truths that are often misunderstood; we do in fact believe that we share the same nature as God before and after deification. “Divinity as such” in LDS thought is associated with a divine union between God and man such that God lifts us up to become as He is. We are created in His image. Our fall was associated with the removing of our bond with God creating a fallen nature in a sense, but we remained the same type of being as God.

I do not expect you to read this and say that sounds cool. It certainly is not in accordance with the radical creator/creature dichotomy that developed through the course of the 2nd century. But, it is what we believe and it is neither unbiblical nor contrary to the words of Justin Martyr or our three early Bishops (so far as I can tell).

cont…
 
So what I propose occurred with deification, the Trinity, and Christology is as follows. St Justin Martyr clearly and Clement or Rome probably embraced creation ex materia. During the course of the second century the desire to emphasize the supremacy of God resulted in the development of the creator/creature dichotomy and creation ex nihilo. After this was accepted with almost no question (there is the Against Hermogenes discussion, but no other to my knowledge), Christianity had a problem. If everything was either God or creature what was Jesus Christ. First we had the modalist say that Jesus was only a mode of the Father. They used the word homoousian, but this was condemned in third century council. Next came the Arian position. Origen and some others may have planted some seeds, and of course Justin Martyr (who can escape the Arian accusation because he didn’t embrace creation ex nihilo). Origen, and others used words like deutros theos (second God) to describe Jesus Christ. Anyway, Arius ultimately acknowledged (during his first opportunity to speak at Nicea) that Jesus Christ was not eternal and was thus a creature. This was the end of any possibility that Arius would prevail, but I suggest that his position derived from the flaw everyone accepted which was creation ex nihilo. Emerging from Nicea and the multiple debates over the next 50 years was the doctrine of the Trinity. To this day this is called a mystery because it asserts that the Father is God, Jesus is God, the Father and Jesus are not the same person, and there is one God (I left out the Holy Spirit for simplicity).

Next we move into the Christology debates. Does the incarnate Christ have one will or two wills. Does the incarnate Christ have one nature or two natures. After much debate (including a Pope teaching what was ultimately rejected) we emerge with two natures and two wills as orthodoxy.

Throughout all this time virtually all those folks discussing these things continue to say words that equate to, “men may become gods.” Some LDS have seen these words and declared game over, there is the proof. But the truth is all these folks cannot mean precisely the same thing as LDS do because of the radical creator/creature dichotomy. So when you, Cestusdei, say the ECF did not mean exactly the same thing as LDS do; I will admit that you are in fact correct. However, the qualifiers necessary within non-LDS Christianity associated with “men may become gods” are just another thing in the long list of hurdles necessitated by the embracing of creation ex nihilo. Without this initial error, the Trinity, Christology, and deification would have been much easier to understand.

Justin**-1st Ap. **And we have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue.(ANF 1.170)

**Justin-Discourse To The Greeks 5 **The Word exercises an influence which does not make poets: it does not equip philosophers nor skilled orators, but by its instruction it makes mortals immortal, mortals god(ANF 1.272)

Irenaeus-Adv. Her. 3.6.1 “God stood in the in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods.” He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church. (ANF 1.419).

Clement of Alexandria - Strom. 4.23 On this wise it is possible for the [true] Gnostic already to have become God. “I said, Ye are gods, and sons of the highest.” (ANF 2.437).

**Athanasius-De Incarnation 54 **For He was made man that we might be made God.(NF 4.65).

**Athanasius-Contra Arians 3.25.25 **…and as we are sons and gods because of the Word in us, so we shall be in the Son and in the Father, and we shall be accounted to have become one in Son and in Father…(NF 4.407)

**Gregory Nazianzen-The Third Theological Oration(Oration29.19) **While His inferior Nature, the Humanity, became God, because it was united to God, and became One Person because the Higher Nature prevailed … in order that I too might be made God so far as He is made Man.(PNF 7.308)

More if you like.

Charity, TOm
 
40.png
catholic-rcia:
The First Christians baptized infants because the first Christians have always done so. This practice was never challenged until the Middle Ages.
Tertullain certainly challenged it. Some words of Justin Martyr may also be less than supportive.
40.png
catholic-rcia:
From the writings of the first Christians and from Scripture we find that the first Christians were baptized as adults to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, because the church was just being formed.
You may correct me if I err, but the “gift of the Holy Spirit” is conferred through confirmation which is always delayed. Baptism is regeneration and it is not exactly the same. I find it interesting that Joseph Smith who restored (or invented) his theology in a Protestant environment never the less produced solid ordinance parallels for the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church.

LDS of course do not believe that the infants are not to come to Christ. I explain our beliefs above.

Also, FAITH IS REQUIRED for baptism. The Catholic postulates that it is a communal faith of parents, godparents, and others who love and support the infant. I believe this to be a beautiful concept, but I did not read it in your post.

If you think other aspects of your post are particularly powerful evidence against LDS I would be happy to try to respond. I think LDS beliefs are solidly in line with the Bible. In fact when the Catholic Church departs into Baptism of Desire and/or condemns Baptism for the Dead (as Isaiah Bennett did on CA) I think it is the Catholics who stand on shaky scriptural ground.

Charity, TOm
 
catholic-rcia said:
Definition of “Household” in Greek

We know that the Greek word oikos, translated “house” or “household,” has traditionally included infants and children in its meaning for several reasons. There is no evidence of this word being used either in secular Greek, Biblical Greek,or in the writing of Hellenistic Judaism in a way which would restrict its meaning only to adults. The Old Testament parallel for “house” carries the sense of the entire family. The Greek translation of the original Hebrew manuscripts (completed in 250 B.C.) uses this word when translating the Hebrew word meaning the complete family (men, women, children, infants). Similarly, we know that the phrase “he and his house” refers to the total family; the Old Testament use of this phrase clearly demonstrates this by specifically mentioning the presence of children and infants at times.
unknown

I think one of the best arguments for infant baptism is that the early church would have little reason to invent the practice (especially when it caused such fits for so many years to hang a theology upon it).

I have seen the household argument. I think it would be significantly stronger if there was any evidence of a word that meant, “All those folks above the age of eight in a family,” and another word that meant, “All those folks in a family including those below the age of eight.” (perhaps a third word that means what I think the New Testament Greek means which is “all in the family” might be of increased niceness). Without such words two things are certainly true. The term household may be convenient and just refer to the entire family, but neglect to mention that those below eight were not baptized. Or the term household may refer to entire families that happened to have no children below eight.

In any case, I would be interested in seeing what sort of source you have for your household position. I have always considered the Bible to be a wonderful book, but a book seldom be able to resolve the more widely debated theological questions. This is why we need authoritative interpretation and/or tradition. If the Bible demands infant baptism this means that AnaBaptists, Baptists, LDS, and many other groups simply cannot read. I find this unlikely and I usually do not try to rely overly much upon the Bible to solve these issues.

Charity, TOm
 
catholic-rcia said:
Definition of “Household” in Greek

We know that the Greek word oikos, translated “house” or “household,” has traditionally included infants and children in its meaning for several reasons. There is no evidence of this word being used either in secular Greek, Biblical Greek,or in the writing of Hellenistic Judaism in a way which would restrict its meaning only to adults. The Old Testament parallel for “house” carries the sense of the entire family. The Greek translation of the original Hebrew manuscripts (completed in 250 B.C.) uses this word when translating the Hebrew word meaning the complete family (men, women, children, infants). Similarly, we know that the phrase “he and his house” refers to the total family; the Old Testament use of this phrase clearly demonstrates this by specifically mentioning the presence of children and infants at times.
unknown

I think one of the best arguments for infant baptism is that the early church would have little reason to invent the practice (especially when it caused such fits for so many years to hang a theology upon it).

I have seen the household argument. I think it would be significantly stronger if there was any evidence of a word that meant, “All those folks above the age of eight in a family,” and another word that meant, “All those folks in a family including those below the age of eight.” (perhaps a third word that means what I think the New Testament Greek means which is “all in the family” might be of increased niceness). Without such words two things are certainly true. The term household may be convenient and just refer to the entire family, but neglect to mention that those below eight were not baptized. Or the term household may refer to entire families that happened to have no children below eight.

In any case, I would be interested in seeing what sort of source you have for your household position. I have always considered the Bible to be a wonderful book, but a book seldom be able to resolve the more widely debated theological questions. This is why we need authoritative interpretation and/or tradition. If the Bible demands infant baptism this means that AnaBaptists, Baptists, LDS, and many other groups simply cannot read. I find this unlikely and I usually do not try to rely overly much upon the Bible to solve these issues.

Charity, TOm
 
catholic-rcia said:
“Concerning what you did say: Temple ceremonies and garments are esoteric aspects of Mormonism. You see little of this in our literature either and certainly no specifics. But document like the “Secret Gospel of Mark” and some Gnostic work provide support for the antiquity of LDS garments and temple practices.”

I have been to Catholic weddings and I have been to the LDS Receptions. In a Catholic wedding all are invited not only to watch two become one, but to take an active role in it as the body of Christ. No one sits outside. None of us our worthy to even be in the Chapel, and yet we are invited by Christ with open arms and we are even embraced by them. Who is worthy to attend a Mormon wedding and who is not? Can you not see the distortion, the damage in this thinking? To think that one cannot enter because one has not been worthy is sad. But what is worst is to lead someone into thinking they are. It’s best to take the back seat, or not to enter at all with this kind of thinking. It’s best to feel less of yourself than more of yourself. When you come to think less of yourself you come to think more of Christ. Is this maybe the reason that those who cannot uphold the ordnances of your church come to the Catholic faith? Those that are less than perfect? I think so. It is a good thing to be left behind in your faith. It gives hope for one to find Christ. At Mass we all say this together: Lord I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word and I shall be healed. It is only Christ that is worthy, and because of this worthiness, his mercy and his love for us. All are welcome. All sinners are welcome in GodsChurch, all are welcome in the Sacrament of Matrimony because you cannot separate the sinner from Christ and Christ does not come to us in our worthiness, he comes to us in our sin. When you get that, you get the message of the Cross. And all are welcome at the foot of the Cross. Unless for some reason you have no need to be there, or you can tell another that they are not welcome.

I do not strictly see how this responds to my pointing to early witness of the Temple, but I will respond to what you have posted.

Every member who enters the Temple is a participant. They either participate in the ceremony as a witness or as a sealer or as a …

The Catholic Church has a long history of denying people the ability to participate in ceremonies based on what might be termed their righteousness. Presumably those who are not denied these particular positions in ceremonies are deemed righteous.

Is the Catholic priest some proto-Christ who is totally righteous? Are Catholic priests not required to believe certain things and even meet certain standards to participate in marriage ceremonies, receive Holy Orders, and …

If you criticism damns LDS who enter the Temple, then it also damns Catholic priests. We LDS are a priestly people at least through Christ we strive to be.

Charity, TOm
 
40.png
cestusdei:
Actually I can quote Basil, Augustine et al. and show where they do affirm the real presence and even the quotes you give do not deny it.
What I was doing (and I really may have not been clear), was saying that a figurative interpretation of John 6 is possible. I was showing that some ECF put forth figurative interpretations of John 6. From this, I suggest that the earliest witness of the real presence may be interpreted figuratively if John 6 can be. In truth, I admit that John 6 and these early witnesses are not most clearly figurative in my mind. The Catholic position is stronger here.

But I can show some ECF who did deny the real presence. I just think the overwhelming witness is John 6 strong or close.
40.png
cestusdei:
I can quote Ignatius on the episcopacy, but I expect you have already read him.
Absolutely, but LDS embrace the episcopacy too. His words are not out of alignment with LDS beliefs.
40.png
cestusdei:
You can also read his reverence for Rome.
True, but other words he writes indicate that he has no concept of Rome’s primacy. I really think Cardinal Newman is well aware of this as he writes about how/why the papacy developed.
40.png
cestusdei:
Ireneaus regards Roman primacy.
Some protestant scholars do address Irenaeus’ words, but I generally accept them as the first solid step toward Roman primacy. Tertuallian (during his Catholic days), a decade or two after Irenaeus, responded by calling this a usurpation.
40.png
cestusdei:
We went over deification. None of them meant by it what Mormons mean by it. I have found that definitions are of vast importance when talking with Mormons.
I addressed this a few posts above here. To my knowledge you and I have not exchanged definitions on deification. I agree this is important. It is my position that the question of “nature” is the only real difference we have. This gets into “divinity as such,” but it is the Catholic who must split hairs here, the LDS has no problems.
40.png
cestusdei:
Certainly some of the gnostics have some strange ideas. They weren’t Christian after all.
Strange ideas, yes? Not Christian. Well, I would not strictly agree here, but certainly they were not orthodox in accordance with the orthodoxy that emerged.
40.png
cestusdei:
However, I expect if you look at all they teach you would not want to claim they were Mormons.
I do not claim that Irenaeus was Mormon either. I have no problem with this. The Gnostics had no more valid Apostolic succession (in the authority of the apostle as the leader of the global church) than did the emerging orthodoxy. I certainly see a continuity in the Catholic Church that I would embrace if I was not a LDS, but when looking at the Early Church to see what Jesus left behind, I do not place more weight upon the emerging orthodoxy solely because it is the emerging orthodoxy. You may choose to ignore the Gnostic witness, but to do this will be to tilt the scales in the favor of orthodoxy for potentially no good reason.
40.png
cestusdei:
Origen’s logokoi do not resemble Mormon pre-existent souls.
I understand that you are correct here. Similarities yes, identity no.
40.png
cestusdei:
Remember though the Mormon Church claims it springs right from Jupiters head fully formed just like the ancient church. Even if you adopt the gnostics you will discover they were not lds.
You have a period after “church.” I do not know exactly what you are saying. I will guess.

Aside from the reference to a pagan God which I will ignore let me address what you may have said. Gnostics not LDS agreed.

“Fully formed”: If I expected the Early Church or the Restored Church to be fully formed at inception, at the death of John (revelator) or Joseph Smith, or even today/today; I think I would be disappointed. Just like the Catholic Church has developed so has the CoJCoLDS. If you demand “fully formed,” you might as well abandon Christianity and probably all theism.

Charity, TOm
 
40.png
TOmNossor:
Tertullain certainly challenged it. Some words of Justin Martyr may also be less than supportive.

You may correct me if I err, but the “gift of the Holy Spirit” is conferred through confirmation which is always delayed. Baptism is regeneration and it is not exactly the same. I find it interesting that Joseph Smith who restored (or invented) his theology in a Protestant environment never the less produced solid ordinance parallels for the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church.

LDS of course do not believe that the infants are not to come to Christ. I explain our beliefs above.

Also, FAITH IS REQUIRED for baptism. The Catholic postulates that it is a communal faith of parents, godparents, and others who love and support the infant. I believe this to be a beautiful concept, but I did not read it in your post.

If you think other aspects of your post are particularly powerful evidence against LDS I would be happy to try to respond. I think LDS beliefs are solidly in line with the Bible. In fact when the Catholic Church departs into Baptism of Desire and/or condemns Baptism for the Dead (as Isaiah Bennett did on CA) I think it is the Catholics who stand on shaky scriptural ground.

Charity, TOm
Baptism to early Christians had a metaphysical effect and that reality was the primary meaning of it’s purpose. Belief was not a necessary component to baptize. It was disastrous to metaphysically change the condition of a persons soul without the affirmation that the new condition would become realized in the life of the person baptized. The only reason to not baptize an infant was the fear that the metaphysical change of the persons soul would not become lived and become unrecognized… A person could end up in a worse condition after baptism than before.

This view is biblical as well as tradtional.
 
40.png
TOmNossor:
Tmaque,

I am interested in what you think Origin had to say about original sin. What leads you to suggest that he postulated this idea. I suggested above that Origin struggled with infant baptism (and the inequality he saw between people born to poor heathen parents verses well off Christian parents). He postulated a pre-existence when, but to my knowledge never formulated a concept of “original sin.”
I found the Origen quotes for you. While he doesn’t use the term “original sin”, it is evident that the doctrine is certainly part of his belief system.

EVERYONE in the world FALLS PROSTRATE under SIN. And it is the Lord who sets up those who are cast down and who sustains all who are falling [Psalm 145:14]. IN ADAM ALL DIE, and THUS the world FALLS PROSTRATE and requires to be SET UP AGAIN, so that in Christ all may be made to live [1 Cor 15:22]. (Homilies on Jeremias 8:1)

EVERY SOUL that is BORN into flesh is SOILED by the filth of wickedness and SIN…And if it should seem necessary to do so, there may be added to the aforementioned considerations [referring to previous Scriptures cited that we all sin] the fact that in the Church, Baptism is given FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given EVEN TO INFANTS. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which REQUIRED a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem SUPERFLUOUS. (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3)

The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism EVEN TO INFANTS. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the INNATE STAINS OF SIN, which must be WASHED AWAY through water and the Spirit [cf. John 3:5; Acts 2:38]. (Commentaries on Romans 5:9)
40.png
TOmNossor:
Tertullian was opposed to infant baptism. Again, he recognized that it occurred. He recognized that Baptism was important, but to my knowledge he never postulated an “original sin” doctrine. What passages from Tertullian lead you to believe that he believed in “original sin?”
Here’s Tertullian with the same caveat:
Finally, in every instance of vexation, contempt, and abhorrence, you pronounce the name of Satan. He it is whom we call the angel of wickedness, the author of every error, the corrupter of the whole world, through whom MAN was deceived in the very beginning so that he transgressed the command of God. On ACCOUNT of his transgression MAN was given over to death; and the WHOLE HUMAN RACE, which was INFECTED by his SEED, was made the TRANSMITTER of condemnation. (The Testmiony of the Soul 3:2, c. 200 AD)

“Because by a man came death, by a man also comes resurrection” [1 Cor 15:21]. Here, by the word MAN, who consists of a body, as we have often shown already, I understand that it is a fact that Christ had a body. And if we are all made to live in Christ as WE were made to DIE IN ADAM, then, as in the flesh we were made to DIE IN ADAM, so also in the flesh are we made to live in Christ. Otherwise, if the coming to life in Christ were not to take place in that same substance in which WE DIE IN ADAM, the parallel were imperfect. (Against Marcion 5:9:5, c. 210 AD)

And even earlier, ST IRENAEUS (I was unaware of this…so thanks for prompting my search for Origen’s quotes) Same caveat.
…having become disobedient, [Eve] was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race…Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith. …But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man…WE, however, are all FROM him; and as WE are FROM him, WE have INHERITED his title [of sin]. …Indeed, THROUGH the first Adam, WE offended God by not observing His command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other except to Him, whose commandment WE transgressed at the beginning. (Against Heresies 3:22:4; 3:23:2; 5:16:3)c. 180A.D.
 
What about the Biblical Passages on Original sin? There are many.

The best proof that we can all find on this topic is the fact that we all die as a result of our first parents sin. Accept for our sole Lord and God of Course. Where all life is found and gifted to us.
 
Church Militant:
tkdnick, Make 'em give you historical evidence of it from a neutral source. They can’t because it doesn’t exist.
Neutral historical evidence doesn’t exist to support catholic teachings either…be careful, it cuts both ways.
 
Tom,
Quoting tidbits of the Fathers out of context is like doing the same with scripture. Both of us know the Fathers, and the Apostles for that matter, did not believe we were somehow Gods in embryo as the lds does. Certainly Jews did not accept such a notion. Creatio ex nihilo is found in Genesis 1. I will grant it was common in greek science to take the opposite view. However Biblically it is simply not possible. What your former priest probably said, and I haven’t read it myself, is that in the Fathers man cannot become what God is in terms of nature. God is totally other. His nature and ours are totally different. We were created and had a beginning. He is not and did not. We can share his nature by grace, but we do not become divine as he is. I see the issue as the lds taking an idea and running way to far with it. This is what heresy does. It takes a truth and stretches it out of all proportion. Certainly I can give opposite quotes from the same Fathers and even do so in context. However I doubt it would convince you. Again consider, if Justin were to come back today would he find the lds church to be home? I don’t think even you would say yes to that. He would be at Mass.
 
Original sin is very Obviouse. Our Bible study has some really good discussions on it. I was once told by a Church of Christ freind that what we need to do with the LDS is talk about their sin. My reaction was why would I talk about theri sin? I would rather talk about mine.

It was not until I became Catholic that I began to see myself in a different light. It has been five years now of receiving the Eucharist. I am being transformed. When I used to do something good for another I used to take the credit for it without acknowledging God in this good deed. Rather innocently for the most part I would acknowledge it as my own good deed, thus the fallen nature in me. Now when I think about doing a good deed for another I know that it is God in me doing the prompting, getting this deed done for another. How do I know this? Because for the most part I do not want to do it. Before I would block these thoughts out and act as if I did not hear them or feel them. When others would tell me I was special I would believe them. And this would help me to do other good deeds. All that I had then to offer up to God was my pride, and he being God used it to do good for others. But now as a Catholic when I do a good deed for another I hear both God prompting me and my fallen nature. I have come to face this nature by the way of the Cross and realize that with out God, His Promptings and Christ I really am nothing at all. Before I would do good deeds for the acknowledgement, but not admitting this to my own self. It is a scary thing to come to grips with, but with Christ and His Church and the Sacraments it becomes secondary as it is understood well and left behind when possible for a mere human. You step through another door and thank God that this door is available. It is a much better place, with a much brighter outlook on everything that really matters in the end.
Now when I do a good deed I think not to much of myself in it, but thank God for giving me the choice to pass on His good works. If I start to think that I am special in this good work I block that out now and move on. At least I honestly try. All this makes so much sense when it comes to original sin, receiving the Eucharist, and contemplating the Cross of our Christ. Jesus set a very good example for us in the dessert and in the washing of His disciple’s feet. It is in the lowest places that we will look up and see Him. As it should be.
 
40.png
Zippy:
Neutral historical evidence doesn’t exist to support catholic teachings either…be careful, it cuts both ways.
Zippy, stick around and pay attention. You might learn something.
 
Gestusdes Wrote
“He would be at Mass.”

Yes, very true, and beleive that every Sunday he is still at Mass with us. Because as you already know God is the God of the living and not the dead.
 
Tom,
Btw, my reference to Jupiter was from mythology. The greeks believed that Athena sprung fully armed from Zeus’ forehead. The idea I had was to counter the notion that somehow you had an lds church that suddenly around 100 AD fell apart without a trace. The gnostics all were later and really if you do read them you will not want to claim them as Mormon.
 
40.png
Tmaque:
I found the Origen quotes for you. While he doesn’t use the term “original sin”, it is evident that the doctrine is certainly part of his belief system.

EVERYONE in the world FALLS PROSTRATE under SIN. And it (Homilies on Jeremias 8:1)

EVERY SOUL that is BORN into flesh is SOILED by the filth of wickedness and SIN…And if it should seem necessary to do so, there may be added to the aforementioned considerations [referring to previous Scriptures cited that we all sin] the fact that in the Church, Baptism is given FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given EVEN TO INFANTS. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which REQUIRED a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem SUPERFLUOUS. (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3)

The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving (Commentaries on Romans 5:9)

Here’s Tertullian with the same caveat:
Finally, in every instance of vexation, contempt, and abhorrence, of the Soul 3:2, c. 200 AD)

"Because by a man came death, by a man also comes the parallel were imperfect. (Against Marcion 5:9:5, c. 210 AD)

And even earlier, ST IRENAEUS (I was unaware of this…so thanks for prompting my search for Origen’s quotes) Same caveat.
…having become disobedient, [Eve] was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race…Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith. …But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man…WE, however, are all FROM him; and as WE are FROM him, WE have INHERITED his title [of sin]. …Indeed, THROUGH the first Adam, WE offended God by not observing His command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other except to Him, whose commandment WE transgressed at the beginning. (Against Heresies 3:22:4; 3:23:2; 5:16:3)c. 180A.D.
Let me acknowledge that the second statement you quoted from Origin was beyond what I though you would find. I have been trying to link it or remove it from a link to Origins belief in the pre-existence. I know the he spoke of the preexistence in De Prinicipiis not in Homilies on Leviticus, but nothing in the second Origin quote referred to Adam’s sin. However, the importance of original sin is that it is transmitted GUILT from the fact that Adam is our g…ggrandfather. That the sin is transmitted through birth to the child.

In my investigation of this I have found that most scholars (even Catholics) largely agree that “original sin” was an Augustine construction. I quoted Dr. David F. Wright who is a very well respected church historian. He is not a LDS, and I think I might be a Catholic, but I am not sure. Another interesting fact from David F. Wright is that nearly all the prominent church leaders of the fourth century, including those from strong church families, the date of whose baptism we know, were baptized as adults. Everett Ferguson postulates a non-original sin reason for pre-Augustine infant baptism. He says, “The connection of infant baptism with original sin is a result of Augustine’s influence. It was not originally a feature of the eastern church fathers’ reasoning.”

The Ireneaus quote is convoluted (look at the source reference), included improper use of ellipses (generally you may omit text and replace it with ellipses, but this quote skips “Book 4” not to mention dozens of chapters), and the whole strength of the position hangs on the “[of sin]” which is wholly an addition by the apologist.

Charity, TOm
 
40.png
catholic-rcia:
What about the Biblical Passages on Original sin? There are many.

The best proof that we can all find on this topic is the fact that we all die as a result of our first parents sin. Accept for our sole Lord and God of Course. Where all life is found and gifted to us.
If you read my post on LDS belief with respect to the fall, I would hope that you would see that we fully acknowledge all the Biblical passages.

EOs who do not revere Augustine like western Christians do believe that “original sin” is the sin of Adam, but that it is the fallen, separated nature that results, not an inherited guilt.

Surely they do not neglect their Bible or read it in light of the second article of faith.

Charity, TOm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top