The Great Apostasy Debate

[Benadam]

catholic-rcia:

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.

That is such a good description of the inner life as viewed from a perspective of love and acceptance. Sounds like the Eucharistic Christ in you to me!:yup:

 

[TOmNossor]

cestusdei:

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.

I have yet to use “gods in embryo,” and I generally would not.

No, I do not believe the writings of the Apostles or the Apostolic Fathers evidence a rejection of “gods in embryo.” The truth is that I do not believe the Apostles wrote in the same ways as the apologists of the 2nd and 3rd … centuries. The writings of the Apostles have resulted in 30000+ denominations. They are hardly strict defining texts.

And, I did not quote out of context. The context is quite clear in the Early Church. “Men may become gods.” How this is true is elaborated on in some ways but not in others. It is clearly through Jesus Christ. He who was rich become poor such that we who are poor may become rich. How this truth effects the monotheistic declarations of the Old and New Testaments is less defined, but LDS and Catholic theology of today have answers for this. As I suggested the real point of difference is associated with nature.

And I would suggest the deification of Jewish priests was solid pre-exilic belief. Further I would suggest that Christianity has its roots not so much in the Judaism that prevailed during Christ’s day, but in the pre-exilic Judaism. These ideas come from well respected Methodist scholar Margaret Barker.

cestusdei:

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.

To get to the bottom of what I believed happened we will need to really dive into the Creation ex Nihilo debate, but what you say here concerning Genesis 1 is not the prevailing view of scholars any longer. Most scholars, including a Catholic scholar I can quote for you, are recognizing that the Bible does not demand creation ex nihilo. I would recommend Gerhard May’s book, “Creatio ex Nihilo” if we are to discuss this. And as I keep saying Justin Martyr was clear and Clement of Rome was reasonably clear in embracing ex materia creation.

cestusdei:

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 agree that this is the major difference. I suggest that this is a developed difference that occurred when creation ex nihilo and the radical creator/creature dichotomy was embraced in the second century. Like the Trinity debate and like the Christology debate this issue became more confusing than it would have been pre-dichotomy.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

cestusdei:

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.

I am not sure if I am aware of an ECF (the earlier the better in my mind), who said that, “Men may become gods, but remember this is merely sharing his nature by grace because we are wholly other.”

The fact is that I readily accept that everyone after Justin Martyr embraced the radical creator/creature dichotomy, therefore I acknowledge that when I quote from these fathers they cannot mean exactly as LDS do. But unlike the Trinity and the Christology debates, I do not think that this was so explicitly addressed. The words, “men may become gods” were on the way out of common speech. It is within the last 50 years that they have begun to return. When I was showing CCC#460 to my LDS friend my mother asked what we were looking at. I showed her and she was basically appalled at the language used. My SSPX Catholic friend who spends most of his history studying the last 200 years and were the Catholic Church went wrong just said the modern CCC cannot be trusted.

cestusdei:

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.

If he hung his hat upon creation ex materia he would be a LDS. If he looked at Transubstantiation he would not be a Catholic (Newman and Bishop Kaye suggest Justin’s words point to consubstantiation). If he walked around insisting that Jesus Christ was “duetros theos,” he would be chased out of the Catholic Church, but he would be welcomed into the CoJCoLDS. What passages from Justin Martyr would you say prove he was not a LDS. I think there probably are some, but I do not know which ones you would use.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

cestusdei:

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.

Well I guess I am not as up on my Greek mythology as I should be.

I think you are mistaken about the origins of Gnosticism. Simon Magus was probably the first CHRISTIAN Gnostic and he was a contemporary of the Apostles. The Gospel of Thomas is of course believed by some writers to have true roots in the teachings of the Apostle Thomas and Jesus Christ. And it is generally acknowledge that there was a pre-Christians Gnosticism that existed.

You are however correct that I do not wish to claim Gnostics were LDS. I think I said this above. Perhaps I will take Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp if I can get them, but Simon Magus likely held many heretical views.

My concept of the apostasy suggests that the three above Bishops had valid local authority. This would be more than I could suggest Simon Magus had. The reason I think Gnostic writings cannot be wholly ignored is that I do not believe the developed orthodoxy was protected by an apostolic (world wide church) authority any more than I think the Gnostic Christians were protected by such an authority. The melee of early Christianity must be considered if we are discussioning who has the authority. We cannot just assume that the unorthodox folks have no truth because the whole question is who has the truth and who has the authority.

Charity, TOm

 

[Benadam]

TOmNossor:

Well I guess I am not as up on my Greek mythology as I should be.

I think you are mistaken about the origins of Gnosticism. Simon Magus was probably the first CHRISTIAN Gnostic and he was a contemporary of the Apostles.

Tom, a gnostic christian ? One can’t serve two masters applies here.

The Gospel of Thomas is of course believed by some writers to have true roots in the teachings of the Apostle Thomas and Jesus Christ. And it is generally acknowledge that there was a pre-Christians Gnosticism that existed.

they are wrong in that it is a false gospel from it’s roots.
Gnosticism as a form of thinking is old, the thinking formalized and attached to the stories of human experience was developing before Christ.

You are however correct that I do not wish to claim Gnostics were LDS. I think I said this above. Perhaps I will take Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp if I can get them, but Simon Magus likely held many heretical views.

could lds even be distinguished from heretics then? If so, how would they be distinguishable?

---

My concept of the apostasy suggests that the three above Bishops had valid local authority. This would be more than I could suggest Simon Magus had. The reason I think Gnostic writings cannot be wholly ignored is that I do not believe the developed orthodoxy was protected by an apostolic (world wide church) authority any more than I think the Gnostic Christians were protected by such an authority.

It stands to reason it was, it must have been or any subsequent claim to authority is supported by what prerequisite? Obviously authority must become relative in regards of all early Christians in order to believe it can reappear visibly two eons after it is established within time.

The melee of early Christianity must be considered if we are discussioning who has the authority. We cannot just assume that the unorthodox folks have no truth because the whole question is who has the truth and who has the authority.

If a melee existed early in Christianity how can we assume an authority existed? Authority binds, it isn’t a reality that would be lost and without visible witness then reappear with authenticity. What could possibly authenticate authority?

Charity, TOm

 

[catholic-rcia]

Originally Posted by cestusdei

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.*
Thank you, and all glory to God. Keep these thoughts well cestusdei, this way we will always remain Gods Children forever, one Father for all forever. We will always need Him in order to remain His Children, this need is life itself. This is what makes the yoke easy and the burden light. The moon is at times very bright and beautiful, but its light comes from the sun. In a way this is like us as well. We know whose light has been given to us in order to bring us out of the darkness of our fallen nature. So let the light of the Son shine so that others too can also find this light. Otherwise like the other side of the moon one may become lost in the darkness by glorying in this light apart from its source, that which is Trinity and eternal. .
*As to *CCC#460 there is another parallel here Tom. Twisting this into something that it is not is very wrong and dangerous. When you have Trinity dwelling in your soul you have the Christian revelation as to its clear meaning. Using it out of its proper context to place doubt in one of Gods Children minds is also very wrong. Here is another place where this happens

“Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?” / But the serpent said to the woman: "You certainly will not die!..

…In a sense Tom, you say: “Don’t you see that your own Catechism says that you can become a God as God is”

This will work, it is a good tool to use for an up and coming apologist of the LDS faith. But it would only work on children, and on those who do not know their faith well enough, and not know that they should not eat of it.

**

*Please Tom take no offense here, I have this force working in me as well daily. It is at Confession that we all acknowledge this together and fight against it together, no one better in it than another. The devil lies to bring Gods children away from God. The temptation is very strong to want Gods power. I have fallen to my knees and asked to be forgiven many times in this pursuit to be freed from this. It is a very heavy burden that I know personally. *
**

---

“It is not literally true that is has been said of us: “You are gods,” and that we are to become “sons of God”? How few of the baptized appreciate the essence of all revelations: that God dwells in the man who is in the state of grace? This is the campaign that is most urgently needed: to help each and every one to Realize fully, perhaps for the first time, the divine dignity that Baptism confers by engrafting us upon Christ Himself making us a living member of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, communicating to us the very life of the Blessed Trinity, making us **partners **(can share his nature) in the royal priesthood of Christ and His Church, uniting us in a common kinship with all our baptized brethren by this spiritual solidarity, which is the Communion of Saints, consecrating us as living chalices, as living temples to the personal and social worship of the true God.”

Father Raoul Plus, S.J.**

 

[Tmaque]

TOmNossor:

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.
]

Tom,
Come on now. Origen makes it plain that he believes in the concept. This statement says it all:
“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.” Infants having the stain of sin on them is exactly what we’re talking about.

TOmNossor:

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.”
]

I totally reject the notion that the concept is an Augustinian invention. I don’t care what others say I can read the text for myself. The evidence (to me) is overwhelmingly against that claim. I have quotes from the following ECF in support of the concept and all precede Augustine:
The Apostle Paul, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Methodius, Aphraates, Ephraim, Athanasius, Basil, Didymus, Pacian, Ambrose and Ambrosiaster. Augustine did develop the doctrine and give it clarity. But, he developed the doctrine from the clear and firm theological premises accepted by the ECF and by St. Paul himself.

TOmNossor:

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.

These are the words of Irenaeus:

“For WE were debtors to none other except to Him, whose commandment WE transgressed at the beginning.” Seems clear to me. We (all of us) inherited a debt from Adam’s transgression. Because we inherited this debt we also transgressed. Can it be read otherwise?

 

[Tmaque]

TOmNossor:

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

I think the difference really lies in what we believe about human nature. Human beings in their fallen state are inclined to sin. We have a sinful nature. That sinful nature is a direct result of the original sin of Adam. We carry the burden of that sin in our very nature. That burden needs to be lifted through baptism. That’s my understanding of it and I don’t think many E.O. would disagree with anything I just said. My understanding(what I was taught) of LDS doctrine is that it firmly rejects any notion of a sinful nature. A fallen nature, yes, but only in terms of our human mortality. Not in terms of our natural inclination to sin. In fact, the FAIR website mentions that “all souls come to earth in a pure state”. So, fallen, but pure.

The entire weight behind the logic for original sin lies on the reality of infant baptism. The fact is there is a preponderance of evidence to suggest infant baptism was practiced right from the beginning. Why was it practiced right from the start? The only answer is that we must have a sinful nature that needs to be cleansed. As Origen puts it, and I’m paraphrasing here…If there is no saving grace in the baptism of infants then why do we do it? The answer? They did it because there was an spiritually effacacious benefit derived from it for the infant. That benefit was the spiritual erasure of the sinful nature, or, original sin.

 

[Zippy]

Tmaque:

Zippy, stick around and pay attention. You might learn something.

?? You mean that after all theses years of waiting for independant evidence that supports the catholic traditions, someone might finally produce some?

I’ve been waiting to see something that is not produced by the ‘church’ for years…I’m anxiously waiting

 

[Tmaque]

?? You mean that after all theses years of waiting for independant evidence that supports the catholic traditions, someone might finally produce some?

I’ve been waiting to see something that is not produced by the ‘church’ for years…I’m anxiously waiting

As a Catholic convert via Mormonism and agnosticism I believe that if you can’t see at least some evidence it is because you don’t want to.

 

[cestusdei]

Tom,
You are wise not to claim them. I had some great quotes I was going to post from them. But look at how Justin describes the Mass. The worship he describes is Catholic not Mormon. I keep hammering at the idea that these men would not recogize the lds church as being theirs.

 

[Zippy]

Tmaque:

As a Catholic convert via Mormonism and agnosticism I believe that if you can’t see at least some evidence it is because you don’t want to.

You seem to believe its so prolific, yet you failed to provide any.

I’m still waiting to see the independant proof regarding the catholic church. I suspect I’ll be waiting a VERY, VERY LONG TIME.

 

[Chris-WA]

TOmNossor:

Here is something I wrote about a year ago.
The scripture:
The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him… Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. (Matthew 22:23-30)

Here are the things that in my mind mute this.

1. The CoJCoLDS does not believe that the Eternal Marriage is something that can be preformed in heaven. This is the reason that it is preformed by proxy in Temples. The same is true of Baptism. So “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage.” Those who are not seal on earth for themselves or by proxy are not married in heaven.
   Tom, you’re simply reading into scripture what’s not there. You’re retroactively applying a modern LDS doctrine to something that never existed. Look at the above passage from Matthew. We have a woman who was married on earth. Who’s wife will she be in heaven? Nobody’s, because there is no marriage in heaven. There is no concept of eternal marriage given here. Nobody is asking Jesus if she will get married in heaven. They’re asking which husband she married on earth will be her husband in heaven (eternal marriage?). It’s a silly question, showing a lack of understanding on the part of the Saducees, because they don’t understand that in heaven, we’re not married–we’re like the angels. Nowhere in the Bible that I know of does Jesus talk about eternal marriage, not even with those that did believe in the resurrection. Eternal marriage was a new doctrine instroduced by Joseph Smith.

TOmNossor:

1. Jesus was speaking to the Sadducees who denied the resurrection. It was not critical to expound upon the much deeper truths associated with Eternal Marriage with a group of folks who are unable to accept the more basic truth of the resurrection. This is the “pearls before swine.” Jesus knew these men would only find additional things to ridicule God’s plan were he to attempt to explain more.

Very weak argument here. You’re making too many assumptions. Very vague.

TOmNossor:

1. Some of the above comes from Bickmore. This is Bickmore’s quote of Tvednes:

In the Apocrypha… we read of a young woman, Sarah, who had been married to seven husbands (all brothers), each of whom was killed on the wedding night by a demon. But in the story (Tobit 6:10-8:9), Sara ultimately marries an eighth husband, Tobias, son of Tobit, who, following instructions from the archangel Raphael, manages to chase the demon away and is therefore not slain. Of special interest is the fact that the archangel (who, according to Tobit 3:17, had been sent to arrange the marriage) tells the young man that his wife had been appointed to him “from the beginning” (Tobit 6:17). This implies that she had not been sealed to any of her earlier husbands, which would explain why none of them would claim her in the resurrection, as Jesus explained. But if she were sealed to Tobias, the situation changes. Assuming that the Sadducees (whose real issue was one of resurrection, not of eternal marriage) were alluding to this story but left off part of it, this would explain why Jesus told them, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God”

Again, this is a real stretch–too much so. Nothing implies that anybody had ever been “sealed” to anybody. How about the more obvious explanation: she wasn’t meant for the first seven men. She was meant to be married to Tobias. Nothing here about eternal marriage. You have to retroactively apply LDS doctrine to something that happened thousands of years ago.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Todays Scripture readings pretty much sums up what is being discussed on this board regarding original sin.

ewtn.com/Devotionals/inspiration.htm#13

 

[Benadam]

Tmaque:

I think the difference really lies in what we believe about human nature. Human beings in their fallen state are inclined to sin. We have a sinful nature. That sinful nature is a direct result of the original sin of Adam. We carry the burden of that sin in our very nature. That burden needs to be lifted through baptism. That’s my understanding of it and I don’t think many E.O. would disagree with anything I just said. My understanding(what I was taught) of LDS doctrine is that it firmly rejects any notion of a sinful nature. A fallen nature, yes, but only in terms of our human mortality. Not in terms of our natural inclination to sin. In fact, the FAIR website mentions that “all souls come to earth in a pure state”. So, fallen, but pure.

The entire weight behind the logic for original sin lies on the reality of infant baptism. The fact is there is a preponderance of evidence to suggest infant baptism was practiced right from the beginning. Why was it practiced right from the start? The only answer is that we must have a sinful nature that needs to be cleansed. As Origen puts it, and I’m paraphrasing here…If there is no saving grace in the baptism of infants then why do we do it? The answer? They did it because there was an spiritually effacacious benefit derived from it for the infant. That benefit was the spiritual erasure of the sinful nature, or, original sin.

Hi Todd,

great post! I always enjoy your contributions, they are written well, difficult concepts are easily understood and accurately communicated. I want to add some things about original sin and and baptism including infants.

The metaphysical reality of original sin is a deformed soul. The human soul is the principle of life. This life principle is formed in such a pattern that it will inherently direct it’s body towards fulfilling it’s purpose. That pattern of life also manifests in the pattern of life the body lives out within the actions of as it obeys the will. Before sin the pattern of life lived in the physical by the body was a perfect imitation of the pattern or form of the immortal soul. When the original sin occured it was the first act that was not part of the pattern that the immortal soul was formed from. Nevertheless the body and soul are one in being and that act placed it’s alteration on the perfectly formed pattern of the soul changing it former pattern into a new one.The soul was no longer a perfect pattern making it immortal it had taken on the imperfect pattern of life lived by the body and lost it’s power to fulfill it’s life as well.

This makes Jesus’ description of John the Baptist more significant when He described him as " a perfect pattern of righteousness". In that description is the meaning of the metaphysical reality of baptism’s ability to re-establish the deformed soul into a life that can live a pattern that reforms the soul into it’s original perfection through the perfection that John’s life offers paving a way for the pattern of Christ’s perfect life to be lived leading man to His resurrection. Why would anyone deny an infant the pattern of perfect life that can offer it the ability to reform the deformed soul it was born with?

 

[tkdnick]

Sheesh! You guys have been bookin! I’m gone for two days and there’ve been like 50 posts.

 

[tkdnick]

Chris-WA:

Tom, you’re simply reading into scripture what’s not there. You’re retroactively applying a modern LDS doctrine to something that never existed.

Nice to see ya again Chris!

 

[Benadam]

Originally Posted by TOmNossor
3. Jesus was speaking to the Sadducees who denied the resurrection. It was not critical to expound upon the much deeper truths associated with Eternal Marriage with a group of folks who are unable to accept the more basic truth of the resurrection. This is the “pearls before swine.” Jesus knew these men would only find additional things to ridicule God’s plan were he to attempt to explain more.

Tom, there is a deeper message Jesus taught to the Sadducees when this occured.

" Those fit for the ressurection are like angels in heaven, they aren’t given in marriage because they can no longer die."

The reality that drove Christ’s celibacy was his conscious experience of a life that originated in heaven.

A life that isn’t subject to death is experienced differently in that the purposes of a heavenly life drive heavenly desires that don’t require the need to reproduce or to survive.

 

[tkdnick]

Benadam:

Tom, there is a deeper message Jesus taught to the Sadducees when this occured.

" Those fit for the ressurection are like angels in heaven, they aren’t given in marriage because they can no longer die."

The reality that drove Christ’s celibacy was his conscious experience of a life that originated in heaven.

A life that isn’t subject to death is experienced differently in that the purposes of a heavenly life drive heavenly desires that don’t require the need to reproduce or to survive.

Nice post! :clapping:

 

[Tmaque]

Benadam:

Hi Todd,

great post! I always enjoy your contributions, they are written well, difficult concepts are easily understood and accurately communicated. I want to add some things about original sin and and baptism including infants.

The metaphysical reality of original sin is a deformed soul. The human soul is the principle of life. This life principle is formed in such a pattern that it will inherently direct it’s body towards fulfilling it’s purpose. That pattern of life also manifests in the pattern of life the body lives out within the actions of as it obeys the will. Before sin the pattern of life lived in the physical by the body was a perfect imitation of the pattern or form of the immortal soul. When the original sin occured it was the first act that was not part of the pattern that the immortal soul was formed from. Nevertheless the body and soul are one in being and that act placed it’s alteration on the perfectly formed pattern of the soul changing it former pattern into a new one.The soul was no longer a perfect pattern making it immortal it had taken on the imperfect pattern of life lived by the body and lost it’s power to fulfill it’s life as well.

This makes Jesus’ description of John the Baptist more significant when He described him as " a perfect pattern of righteousness". In that description is the meaning of the metaphysical reality of baptism’s ability to re-establish the deformed soul into a life that can live a pattern that reforms the soul into it’s original perfection through the perfection that John’s life offers paving a way for the pattern of Christ’s perfect life to be lived leading man to His resurrection. Why would anyone deny an infant the pattern of perfect life that can offer it the ability to reform the deformed soul it was born with?

Thank you for those kind words. Great post. I really like the idea of “deformed soul”, although “wounded soul” better suits my particular understanding of it. I loved these words in particular:

“baptism’s ability to re-establish the deformed soul into a life that can live a pattern that reforms the soul into it’s original perfection paving a way for the pattern of Christ’s perfect life”

Great food for contemplation. Thanks for the insight.