Infant Baptism

[saemo]

I think there is a difference between believing Christ atones for those who have no choice in the matter (and thus they do not require baptism) and believing that the Atonement does not cover those who have refused to establish the covenant with him (for which baptism is required).

No difference that I can see.

Baptism is not required in LDS thought for all during mortality. There is no clear revelation, imo, what happens to the children once they reach an age of accountability in the next life. It is possible that they will undergo baptism much like those who have not had the chance in this life and desire it will have a chance.

Catholics believe that baptism is for the soul of the person, which has nothing to do with the age of the body.

What will not happen for sure to those children is they will not be damned for eternity, which is the direct message Moroni was teaching against.

Yes, I understand the time/place that Mormonism emerged from.

[Calm]

It makes no sense to say someone is part of God's Kingdom but not admitted to the Church, because they are the same thing. It's like saying they are people but not humans.

Perhaps in Catholic thought, not so in LDS thought. For LDS it would be like saying they are people, but not adults. Different levels of covenantal relationships with God are built into LDS doctrine.

No difference that I can see.

We will just have to disagree then as I don't have a clue how to describe otherwise what is a glaring difference to me.

Catholics believe that baptism is for the soul of the person, which has nothing to do with the age of the body.

Then they do not see the soul as maturing over time?

[saemo]

Then they do not see the soul as maturing over time?

Not in the sense of a child maturing to an adult.

Becoming holy, yes, but that is not a biological process. It is brought about by God, and requires our cooperation with God. A child can have a matured soul, and an adult can have a lot of maturing to do.

Wisdom 4

7 But the just man, though he die early, shall be at rest. 8 For the age that is honorable comes not with the passing of time, nor can it be measured in terms of years. 9 Rather, understanding is the hoary crown for men, and an unsullied life, the attainment of old age.

[soren]

Perhaps in Catholic thought, not so in LDS thought. For LDS it would be like saying they are people, but not adults. Different levels of covenantal relationships with God are built into LDS doctrine.

Inclusion into the Kingdom of Heaven, however, whatever degree of spiritual maturity it entails, is precisely what Mormon baptism is necessary for, and that privilege is extended to children in Matt 19:14.

Note also my earlier claims that D&C 20 does not distinguish between the baptized and unbaptized as members of different degrees, but sets a dividing line at baptism, as if to prevent anyone confusing a child's blessing as a membership rite. This seems an unavoidable conclusion if one looks at the total context, particularly reading from v. 68 through to 71.

[Servant]

Perhaps a better word would have been "thought" or teachings".

It's been around since Augustine of Hippo (IV), that's a very long time; almost since the founding of the Catholic Church itself.

Lehi

two different things...a suggestion....and doctrine...........

[3DOP]

3DOP

Monday comes. I go to work, and that's when everybody else starts posting!

soren

Original sin, by the way is not a "virus." This term has been used metaphorically by a lot of people, but it is a poor metaphor. Original sin, li(k)e evil itself, is a purely defective thing. It is the absence of any sanctifying grace or blessing above what man possesses by nature. Animals also lack such a blessing, but because man is ordered to a supernatural end, it is an evil for man to lack grace. I(t) is worth pointing out that Mormonism, because it does not believe in the supernatural (not if one understands the word correctly) also believe that infants are born without supernatural grace; they simply do not acknowledge that that is an insufficient state for human happiness and beatitude. "Supernatural grace" does not exist in their theology.

3DOP

And I thought I was being original (pun intended). Poor me. And upon reflection, I agree it is a poor metaphor too. Very important distinction, and if I am not mistaken, a very Augustinian distinction, to remember that original sin, is purely defective. All negatives. No positives. Like evil itself. Only something missing, not something present. I trust you noted my little apology where I said, "if you will permit me to so express it". My point was with regard to the contagion, not the negative or positive nature of the contagion. I think I can claim that I had a hunch that my expression was also defective. Heh. No matter. Thanks for the correction soren.

As for what you say after about LDS not believing in the supernatural, my head seems a little muddled (I am enjoying a liquid pick-me-up for the feast of St John Cantius, old calendar). But if I am not mistaken, I predict I will agree eventually. Maybe Tom has already chimed in. What an easy and completely necessary thing to understand...the distinction between natural and supernatural. I haven't ever thought about it this way before. Are you saying they are Pelagians, even in the face of the way they talk about grace?

[TOmNossor]

The difference is that Catholic theology does not allow for MEN to revoke what Christ has given.

But, in LDS theology Baptism is COVENANTAL. The offer of grace and Godâ??s part of the covenant are unchanging (this is precisely what the Bible means when it says God is unchanging). But, the human part of the COVENANT can be rejected. Thus the restoration is a restoration of what the human rejected, God was unchanging in His commitment which is why it is not a re-do.

So, the human does not undo what Christ does, he undoes what the human had done.

Saemo has suggested a covenantal view for Catholic theology. I would lean towards Saemoâ??s position for my personal take on the theology if I were Catholic, but most Catholic theologians speak closer toward your view.

BTW, I have not read any of the posts, posted after yours. I will continue to go through them.

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

tom, it seems that you are not really dont have a down set understanding of the Catholic

I hope I understand, but if I do not, perhaps you can correct me.

Catholic baptism is a Catholic sacrament. To be valid the baptizer must use the proper material (water), words (â??I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spiritâ?), and have the proper intent. The intent is complex in that it certainly includes an orthodox understanding of the Trinity. Also, if the baptism is merely symbolic in the intent of the baptizer, then that can make the baptism invalid for lack of proper intent. There are possible other intent arguments. As a sacrament Catholic baptism is a vehicle of grace. It changes the recipient permanently. It is thus never re-done. It however is conditionally done and it is also done when Catholic believe there was an invalid baptism.

As I have thought about this more over the course of the day, I lean towards the idea that there is little essential covenantal aspect to Catholic baptism. Perhaps the covenantal aspect of LDS baptism is an â??intentâ? argument against making it valid with Catholic thought. Increasingly, I think Dr. Reynolds is more correct and you are more correct than I thought. Now, if Dr. Reynolds is correct and Saemo is incorrect, then it would seem you could argue the following:

1. Catholic Baptism is a vehicle for Grace. The recipient can do nothing to earn the Baptism and is changed by Godâ??s Graced poured out upon the recipient.

2. LDS Baptism is a two way covenant. God freely offers Grace to the undeserving, but the recipient must CHOOSE to enter into the covenant and thus is part of the ordinance as more than recipient.

If you are arguing for #1 as the Catholic understanding, (contra what Saemo suggested), I can accept that there is quite a bit of difference between Catholic and LDS baptism. I personally desired to hold open room for some covenantal nature in Catholic baptism, but increasingly I am concluding that this is not the best read of Catholic theology.

Perhaps Dr. Reynoldâ??s argument is more absolute than I had thought.

i see that you are avoiding one main factor here....again I ask you since I was born and baptize mormon and left the church and if I come back I would have to get rebaptized....Catholic doesnt work like that...since Im baptized as Catholic if I leave the church and become something else and want to come back to a Catholic Church i would not have to be baptized again..see the DIFFERENCE NOW???

If you have had your name removed, your ORIGINAL baptismal covenant would be restored by a re-baptism. The proper understanding of this would not be a re-do of the original ordinance, but a restoration of the original ordinance.

Again, I can boldly call Catholic â??conditional baptismâ? â??re-baptism.â? I can declare that the little girl I keep bringing up from Catholic radio was baptized 3 time. However, I recognize why a Catholic would not explain their theology like this. Why cannot you see that a LDS would not explain our theology as you have?

ha ha ha I find this commical because you havent got the Catholic view correctly at all...

using your logic then if I say that the LDS believes in pink unicorns it must be true because a LDS did not say it...you are being silly

You have not questioned a single aspect of my view on â??last rites,â? / â??extreme unction,â? / â??blessing of the sick.â?

It seems that in practice (if not in theology, and I have some Vatican II rejecter Catholic friends who claim Vatican II attempted to change Catholic theology when it comes to blessing and healing of the sick) this sacrament did change and is now closer to the LDS ordinance. Do you question any facts or only the conclusion?

I am actually moving some in my thoughts on the similarity between Catholic and LDS baptism. With Catholic Girl and Servant and many Catholic theologians speaking of Baptism as sacramental grace delivered one way from God to man, I wonder how much room there is for a genuine covenantal aspect for Baptism.

Saemo, is it possible that only confirmation involves covenant and thus baptism in Catholicism is non-covenantal? I would find this HUGELY problematic, but it would enable me to agree much more with Servantâ??s view.

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

Well, in defense of TOm--that's not what his point was. It was that both religions have specific conditions where another baptism may be necessary and you can't use Catholic guidelines to determine LDS situations and vice versa.

However, his comparison was still inadequate. His and the Ensign's defense that a re-baptism is simply "a restoration of the original ordinance" and not a redo when that original LDS baptism was revoked as is the claim when an LDS member leaves voluntarily or involuntarily is not even in the same universe as a conditional Catholic baptism.

Thanks for the partial defense.

I agree that â??conditional baptismâ? and â??restoration of original baptismâ? are not identical conditions (not in the same universe? Hmm!). However, I maintain that it is easy to claim â??conditional baptismsâ? or â?¦ are re-baptisms one refuses to accept the Catholic thought behind the practice. Similarly it is the refusal to accept the LDS thought behind â??restoration of original baptismâ? that allows it to be classified as re-baptism. As I mentioned early, the divine portion of the covenant is unchanging and is thus not re-done.

Charity, TOm

[Calm]

I am trying to figure out what the underlying assumptions are that are preventing communication here. I believe it may have to do with how LDS and Catholic each view the meaning of "Church of Christ" and how it manifests in the mortal and immortal realms.

Is a Catholic baptism considered valid if the person went through it with false intentions? Would another baptism be performed if he confessed this? What if this was discovered after he died, would the baptism be assumed to be valid or not? (these questions are to help me understand what is considered the complete validation process of Catholic baptism, is it seen as a dynamic process?)

[TOmNossor]

I think you are not catching Servant's point...a Catholic who has had a valid baptism will never, ever, be re-baptized again for any reason. This is the point she is making regarding re-baptism for ex'd or resigned members. This is unheard of in Catholicism. You know, "once a Catholic always a Catholic".

Actually, Servant has made a different point. The one I keep asking people if they can possible accept, nobody seems to have actually accepted.

Here is the chain more linked:

Im sorry but you are actually wrong. Mormons baptize people that comes from other faiths regardless if they have already been baptized...the Mormons do not recognize baptism from other faith what so ever

So, you are suggesting that since Catholics have some criteria from which to accept non-Catholic baptism or reject non-Catholic baptism they are not re-baptizers when they re-baptize a LDS or a JW.

But, LDS who utilize a criteria, but reject all baptism outside of valid priesthood authority are re-baptizers.

Are there any Catholics on this thread who would like to embrace Servantâ??s ideas here?

I think you are not catching Servant's point...a Catholic who has had a valid baptism will never, ever, be re-baptized again for any reason. This is the point she is making regarding re-baptism for ex'd or resigned members. This is unheard of in Catholicism. You know, "once a Catholic always a Catholic".

So, for those who Catholics do not believe were validly baptized, there is a Catholic baptism. This IMO is virtually the exact parallel of the baptism LDS perform when non-LDS become LDS because we believe they were invalidly baptized outside the CoJCoLDS. This of course is what St. Cyprian advocated too.

Servant also pointed to the re-baptism of the excommunicated member. My point concerning this is a little different and as I admitted above, there is not as defined of a similarity between Catholic â??conditional baptismâ? and LDS â??restoration of baptismal covenant. So my argument for this is that Catholic must appeal to a theological point to show that conditional baptism is not re-baptism just like LDS must appeal to a theological point to show that the restoration of the baptismal covenant post excommunication is not a complete re-baptism.

I think rejecting my point concerning the validity of a baptism resulting in a baptism is virtually an exact parallel and Servantâ??s refusal to acknowledge this is inexplicable. I think my point concerning the restoration of a baptism vs. a conditional baptism is an appeal for common charity in the definition of eachotherâ??s beliefs, but hairs could be split.

I get your point as well though I think that you should point out the wording of a conditional baptism so that people are not confused in the intent.

I would need to look it up, but the words used on a condition baptism specifically mention the conditional aspect of it. The recording of the ordinance for the LDS â??restoration of original baptismâ? similarly makes the theology clear, but the words are identical.

I think that you almost have it. Extreme Unction is known by a few names. The CCC calls it the "Sacrament of Anointing the Sick". Anointing the sick did not come to be at Vatican II, though I agree that prior to Vatican II it was taught as a blessing of the sick who were near to death. This blessing did not imply that death was imminent, in fact, the purpose was to bring healing to the soul and in some cases brought healing to the body. Vatican II retrieved from TRADITION the practice of blessing those who are sick but are not near to death. It wasn't an attempt to copy LDS practice.

From the Council of Trent:

"It is also declared, that this unction is to be applied to the sick, but to those especially who lie in such danger as to seem to be about to depart this life: whence also it is called the sacrament of the departing. And if the sick should, after having received this unction, recover, they may again be aided by the succour of this sacrament"

I agree that theology did not change at Vatican II, but I have read Vatican II denying Catholics (and folks who I do not consider Catholics, but consider themselves Catholic, like sedavacantists) claim that Vatican II changed the theology underlying the sacrament of Extreme Unction.

I personally believe that Vatican II changed the practice (even restored the practice) such that it was both more similar to the ancient practice and closer to the LDS practice, but that the theology was not really changed.

This is not my experience. I clearly understood the baptismal vows before I was baptized. I understand my baptism in both ways, very clearly.

I think that you and Reynold's are being too abstract. (Just my opinion.)

I have been moving away from accepting your position on this. (I accept that it is your position and even that it is not something that disqualifies you as Catholic, I am just beginning to think it is not a view of Catholic theology I should consider as the best read). As an adult, you clearly covenanted as part of your baptism, but increasingly I am believing this was not integral to the sacrament.

I believe this for a few reasons.

First, infants do not covenant.

Second, while the parents, godparents, and parish do on behave of the infant NORMALLY; it would seem that this is not necessary for the sacrament to be valid.

Third, Servant, Catholic Girl, and Catholic theology generally EMPHASIZES the God action in baptism such that no action of the recipient can interfere or invalidate the sacrament. While Catholics do a great job of RCIA (better than LDS), I am beginning to think that the deceptive recipient of Baptism would be just as baptized as the infant or â?¦.

In addition to this, I have listened to Catholic radio where the Catholic grandparents secreted away the infant and had it baptized. The advice of the folks on the radio is that the baby and their parents MUST be informed because they were validly baptized. This would seem IMO to be outside of proper intent on the behalf of the grandparents who are standing in to covenant for the infant. Why would adults with inappropriate motives be different than this?

I think that you and Reynold's are being too abstract. (Just my opinion.)

Perhaps. Reynolds quite expertly seems to like this not only to the apostasy, but to the Biblical and BOM methods through which apostasy would come. I believe his paper does not receive enough attention within LDS circles.

Charity, TOm

[Servant]

Tom Im not going to go into your post because i want you to stay focus on what you said earlier...that our baptism is similar which it is not...so lets stay focus...i will address the others later

If you have had your name removed, your ORIGINAL baptismal covenant would be restored by a re-baptism. The proper understanding of this would not be a re-do of the original ordinance, but a restoration of the original ordinance.

Again, I can boldly call Catholic â??conditional baptismâ? â??re-baptism.â? I can declare that the little girl I keep bringing up from Catholic radio was baptized 3 time. However, I recognize why a Catholic would not explain their theology like this. Why cannot you see that a LDS would not explain our theology as you have?

if I dont believe that the LDS is true i wouldnt need to be "removed" to begin with...so what you are saying is if I become a mormon again i wouldnt need it?

i think you are dont fully understand the LDS baptism...because that is not so...i would still be rebaptized with the name still there or removed...unless they just recently changed the doctrine...Im talking about a matter of weeks...maybe a month...

secondly could you cite in the CCC that a Catholic can be rebaptized more than once? you wont be able to find it at all because that is not the Church teaching at all...

lets stick with what you and myself seem to not understand before we talk about anything else...

[TOmNossor]

but cant back it up because a Catholic didnt state but it must be true because a non catholic stated this...if this is true then the Catholic Church can back up his claim....

I have now spoken more about the MOVEMENT of the Catholic practice of Extreme Unction.

If you believe the statement I quoted is true, that is a problem. Even if you do not believe it to be true, you should not speak like this in apologetics. It is rather clear in the above statement that you refuse to accept any statement from a non-Catholic has any validity.

Now back to baptism:

I hope my last few posts have addressed some of the differences and similarities in Catholic and LDS baptism. I am leaning towards your view that Catholic baptism is a pouring out of grace mediated by the baptizer and coming from God. Whereas LDS baptism is an offer of grace and covenant unmerited, coming from God, mediated by the baptizer, AND COVENANTALLY ACCEPTED by the recipient of the baptism.

Charity, TOm

[Servant]

I have now spoken more about the MOVEMENT of the Catholic practice of Extreme Unction.

If you believe the statement I quoted is true, that is a problem. Even if you do not believe it to be true, you should not speak like this in apologetics. It is rather clear in the above statement that you refuse to accept any statement from a non-Catholic has any validity.

Now back to baptism:

I hope my last few posts have addressed some of the differences and similarities in Catholic and LDS baptism. I am leaning towards your view that Catholic baptism is a pouring out of grace mediated by the baptizer and coming from God. Whereas LDS baptism is an offer of grace and covenant unmerited, coming from God, mediated by the baptizer, AND COVENANTALLY ACCEPTED by the recipient of the baptism.

Charity, TOm

there is no movement you said that the Catholic is moving towards the LDS baptism...this is not true...if it was true then the Catholic Church would have documentation...now if it is just your opinion or someone elses thinking that the Church is...then that person is misinformed with the Catholic baptism...

and about the baptism i only responded to one thing....i want that to be clear before i go and respond to the other stuff you said...when there is more things in one post to be addressed then one or more maybe ignored...

now i do get a little bit understanding what you are meaning though...

[Servant]

just so you know i do see tom in here...i hope he knows I did some editing...one post kind of sounded off and i dont want to be taken wrong so i did change the wording to make it better...

[Catholic Girl]

I'm not ignoring you, TOm---I just don't have time to respond tonight.

[soren]

As for what you say after about LDS not believing in the supernatural, my head seems a little muddled (I am enjoying a liquid pick-me-up for the feast of St John Cantius, old calendar). But if I am not mistaken, I predict I will agree eventually. Maybe Tom has already chimed in. What an easy and completely necessary thing to understand...the distinction between natural and supernatural. I haven't ever thought about it this way before. Are you saying they are Pelagians, even in the face of the way they talk about grace?

By far the most serious error in apologetics with Mormons is the failure to distinguish nature and supernature (at least to distinguish the concepts even if the words are not used). In fact, the failure to properly express this distinction is the main reason why most anti-Mormon literature sucks. This is a terrible error on our side, because the supernatural, though it is difficult to fathom, is at least not difficult to explain.

The concept that the word â??supernaturalâ? was coined to express is that human divinization is a union of distinct categories. The first type of category is the natural, the kind of existence we have. Natural being are limited in capacity to exclusively finite ends, and are designed by God to be perfected and happy within those limitations. Thus a tree is perfect merely by growing and producing seeds for more trees. A horse is perfected merely by existed in comfort, developing its natural prowess in running, and also by making more horses.

The supernatural is just the opposite. The supernatural defines by lack of limitation, which means it does not derive perfection by following certain preordained laws, as trees and horses do, but by being a law unto itself and by creating the laws that govern other things. An unlimited life exists in freedom, which implies intelligence and a will that is directed by intelligence. It is in the realm of the supernatural that we believe God exists. Yet Mormonism considers that God became God by obedience to law. To achieve perfection by obeying a law is precisely what it means to be to be a subject of nature, not its author. God in Mormonism is natural by definition.

The cosmology I have just described makes man a very strange critter because he treads the border between two incommensurables. On the one hands, man is a natural being. He is ordered by laws, and he needs the same things that make a tree and a horse happy, yet he is not satisfied by them. Man is a natural being with supernatural attributes: he has an ordering intellect, devises laws, and is free to reason and love. These capacities are the image of God and they cause man by nature to desire God, a thing which by nature man cannot attain.

Man can attain to God only by an act of supernature, which means an act that originate in God not in man. When God created Adam, he created him in a divinized state, with a perfect indwelling of God inside of his very being. This was a wonderful gift of God, to which Adam had no just claim. (Since justice is equity according to nature, and no natural thing has a claim on the supernatural.) When Adam sinned and lost that supernatural life, he did not lose anything that he had deserved beforehand. He simply assumed the state that is his by the order of nature, which lacks divine perfection and covenantal relation to God. All his descendents are born in this same state, which lacks nothing as far as the order of nature is concerned, and therefore just, but is yet incomplete because it is merely natural.

I think a Mormon could agree with parts of what I have written above, but not with the whole of it. It is just a different worldview, and it makes no sense if man possesses the same nature as God and is equally eternal and self-existent. Of God is not defined by supernature, ten grace is not either, and neither is human happiness and beatitude.

You suggested that I was imputing Pelagianism to Mormons. I do not. Rather Mormons hold a more extreme position than Pelagius. Carefully understood, Mormon theology does not teach that man can earn grace or that he does not need grace or that any action of man may avail without grace, etc. Rather it does something more radical: by acknowledging only natural existence categorically, it reduces grace to a natural agency with only natural ends. This annihilates the Catholic concept of grace altogether, and proposes a whole different construct based on a totally different paradigm, but with the same name of â??grace.â? The reason that a so many discussions of grace on this forum are notably fruitless is that people on both sides constantly define the issues in terms of what grace does rather than what grace is. Failing to reflect on the implications of a supernatural vs. natural conception of grace, we and the Mormons miss the point of one another's theology completely, talking in endless circles as both sides misinterpret and critique one another from opposite ends of the same category error.

[Calm]

Third, Servant, Catholic Girl, and Catholic theology generally EMPHASIZES the God action in baptism such that no action of the recipient can interfere or invalidate the sacrament. While Catholics do a great job of RCIA (better than LDS), I am beginning to think that the deceptive recipient of Baptism would be just as baptized as the infant or â?¦.

This is what my questions were based on, I am wondering how the intent of the participants affect the validity of the ordinance.

[mfbukowski]

Dang. I go away for a day to do my calling and come back and the thread has grown by several pages.

How come all you good Mormons are debating catholics all day sunday?

[soren]

This is what my questions were based on, I am wondering how the intent of the participants affect the validity of the ordinance.

If a person is baptized with wrong intent, it will cancel the consequences of original sin and mark their soul to make them members of the Christian community, but they will not be sanctified unto salvation until they repent of their wrong intentions.

[TOmNossor]

3DOP and Soren,

You are correct that Augustine could easily be quoted-mined in a way that seems to support the OP. It is definitely the case that Augustine said original sin was passed down by procreation. Without proper context, one could easily construe this as an attribution of sin to sex. Augustine is among the most consistently misrepresented Church Fathers in LDS literature, and the claim in the OP are understandable to me, although it is thoroughly wrong.

Ok. Did you read the very Catholic summary I provided to On Marriage and Concupiscence

Wherein He expounds the peculiar and natural blessings of marriage. He shows that among these blessings must not be reckoned fleshly concupiscence; insomuch as this is wholly evil, such as does not proceed from the very nature of marriage, but is an accident thereof arising from original sin. This evil, notwithstanding, is rightly employed by marriage for the procreation of children. But, as the result of this concupiscence, it comes to pass that, even from the lawful marriage of the children of God, men are not born children of God, but of the world, and are bound with the chain of sin, although their parents have been liberated therefrom by grace; and are led captive by the devil, if they be not in like manner rescued by the self-same grace of Christ. He explains how it is that concupiscence remains in the baptized in act though not in guilt. He teaches, that by the sanctity of baptism, not merely this original guilt, but all other sins of men whatever, are taken away. He lastly quotes the authority of Ambrose to show that the evil of concupiscence must be distinguished from the good of marriage.

Augustine supposedly claims that â??as a result of concupiscence â?¦ men are not born children of God, but of the world, and are bound with the chain of sin.â? This IMO is quite close to what the OP stated and even closer to what I claimed was part of Augustine. Do you really think this Catholic summary is quote-mining.

BTW, I am fairly certain the book summarized / introduced above was written after Augustine became a Catholic. He also wrote a Book II, but I think the summary of Book I does not include anything that was claimed by Augustine to be an incorrect understanding of the first book. The second book was written towards the end of Augustineâ??s life.

Finally, let me admit that I have not read On Marriage and Concupiscence. I would think that the Catholic summary I quote is a good representative of the text, but perhaps I am wrong.

Now on to something quite a bit tougher. I missed this in 3DOPs comments, but it is actually quite a big deal.

I would make one further point. Our LDS friends seem to think it is a highly unjust economy which permits the children to partake of the sins of Adam. But do they not embrace just such an economy when they allow that with regard to the righteousness of the Second Adam, Christ, the children partake? Yes, they believe in the vicarious economy of justice when it is favorable unto them. It is certainly a convenient belief. But the basis of true justice is not convenience. I suggest that it is an unjust and imbalanced system which holds we may vicariously enjoy the benefits of Christ's atonement, but not partake vicariously of the fall of Adam. We can't approve a system of vicarious justice that is applicable when favorable but not applicable when unfavorable. If most Mormons can be taken at their word though, that appears to be the kind of confused system of divine justice in which they believe.

The antidote to this is a good reading of Romans 5 and the clear proportionality between Jesus and Adam. A lot of modern exegetes hold that Paul only believes that Adam is an archetype of sinful man, not that he actually brought sin into the world. This view is pleasing to historical-critical reductionism because it is consistent with most Rabbinical teaching, but it is totally out of line with the text:

For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Rom 5:19)

If there is a true proportion between Adam and Christ, and we want to say Christ merited salvation vicariously for us, then we have to take this verse, and the whole passage that contains it, at its word about Adam's correlative role.

First towards 3DOPs point regarding the atonement and various popular theories. Ostler addresses this and walks away from the criticism you levy. I am quite sympathetic to his solution and his â??Compassionate Theory of the Atonement.â?

Now, concerning Sorenâ??s discussion of original sin, LDS views on the fallen nature are significantly closer to Eastern Orthodox thought. I would suggest LDS are closer to EOs on original sin than are EO and Catholics. This is because Augustine in the West thoroughly revisioned what came before. N.P. Williams, Richard Swineburne, George Minois, and Ostler (who is the only LDS on this list though Swineburne is an EO and Minois may be), claim that before Augustine and Ambrose, â??original sinâ? was seldom mentioned and when it was, it was rejected (by Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Theodore Mopuestia, and Cyril of Jerusalem). In addition to this, while Romans 5 (including 5:19) plays largely in Augustineâ??s thought, so does Romans 5:12. The problem is that most scholars acknowledge that Augustine used a poor translation of Romans 5:12 (and some scholars N.P. Williams argue that Augustine had 5 main verses and 3 of the 5 were mistranslations).

I do not think original sin or some of the more common views of the atonement are not anything that can be defended within the Bible. But, original sin is so non-obvious even with Romans 5 (especially for Eastern Christians who understood the Greek unlike Augustine who read the Ambrosian Latin translation) that Eastern Christianity has never accepted it in the way that Western Christians do.

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

Are there LDS who do include a "god the mother"? (I think you know how incredibly heretical this is.)

There are certainly LDS who embrace theological positions that lend themselves to be criticizes in that way. There is an EWTN article that utilizes this as a component of their criticism.

I personally think the only scriptural basis for â??god the motherâ? is in the Old Testament. And, I embrace the view of Ostler that involves an eternal Godhead consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

Servant,

I wanted you to review the below and tell me if you think I understood the Catholic baptism.

I hope I understand, but if I do not, perhaps you can correct me.

Catholic baptism is a Catholic sacrament. To be valid the baptizer must use the proper material (water), words (â??I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spiritâ?), and have the proper intent. The intent is complex in that it certainly includes an orthodox understanding of the Trinity. Also, if the baptism is merely symbolic in the intent of the baptizer, then that can make the baptism invalid for lack of proper intent. There are possible other intent arguments. As a sacrament Catholic baptism is a vehicle of grace. It changes the recipient permanently. It is thus never re-done. It however is conditionally done and it is also done when Catholic believe there was an invalid baptism.

Now, to the post to which I am responding:

Tom Im not going to go into your post because i want you to stay focus on what you said earlier...that our baptism is similar which it is not...so lets stay focus...i will address the others later

if I dont believe that the LDS is true i wouldnt need to be "removed" to begin with...so what you are saying is if I become a mormon again i wouldnt need it?

i think you are dont fully understand the LDS baptism...because that is not so...i would still be rebaptized with the name still there or removed...unless they just recently changed the doctrine...Im talking about a matter of weeks...maybe a month...

secondly could you cite in the CCC that a Catholic can be rebaptized more than once? you wont be able to find it at all because that is not the Church teaching at all...

lets stick with what you and myself seem to not understand before we talk about anything else...

If one not removed from the records of the CoJCoLDS through either request or excommunication requires a restoration of the baptismal sacrament, then I am mistaken in my understanding.

I am still quite confident that if there was a restoration of the baptismal sacrament, the records would record the original baptism date rather than record that there was a complete redo.

I see the change you made and I will use the changed post (it was fine before you changed it!).

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

there is no movement you said that the Catholic is moving towards the LDS baptism...this is not true...if it was true then the Catholic Church would have documentation...now if it is just your opinion or someone elses thinking that the Church is...then that person is misinformed with the Catholic baptism...

I am sorry if I was unclear. I am of the opinion that the Catholic sacrament of Last Rites / Extreme Unction has moved towards the LDS ordinance of blessing and healing the sick. I have elaborated on this above, and I hope you do not respond to the statement without addressing the more detailed info I included. More interestingly still would be to look at the criticisms from ultra-trads that call the Vatican II movement on Extreme Unction change.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Newsletters/1999/M...eme-Unction.htm

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

Oh yes.

I wanted to add this (largely in concert with Cal). I had never thought about the â??baby blessingâ? verses â??baptized memberâ? with respect to membership / covenantal nature.

I like something Cal said. There are different covenantal levels within the CoJCoLDS.

At the most, the blessed baby is a semi-covenantal member with a family and ward family committed to their growth in the gospel. They are covered by the atonement of Christ as are all babies before the age of accountability, but they are â??members of recordâ? in the CoJCoLDS too.

Baptism and Confirmation involves direct 2 way covenants.

There are other covenants involved in the LDS sacrament, Temple ordinances, Temple marriage, and â?¦

Charity, TOm