quote:Or perhaps I should say that through the fall, our wills became weak enough that our desires became our masters rather than vice versa
Maybe not that our wills become weak...Hm. The way I look it at it is that our physical bodies were new to us. This mortal life is a time for us to learn how to 'use' them, or to gain control over the desires etc. The Atonement also helps us with this through repentance and our ability to be forgiven for our sins.
(I might just be saying the same thing over and over again, forgive me. Like I said, I'm learning new things here! )
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, if I understand correctly, Catholics believe that pre-fall Adam and Eve had all the passions, lusts, and hungers that we do, but they had a protection from God against them? This is a new concept to me. How does that work exactly?
We believe they were not subject to those passions due to God's grace. Whether that meant the passions were cut off before they happened, or they were given the ability to withstand the passions, I don't know.
quote:And you say that there is no change in Adam and Eve's bodies with the fall, but they do become susceptible to death? How exactly does that work without some sort of change in their bodies? Was it also part of the protection idea? That God would stop anything that would harm them or cause death?
It's part of the protection idea, but there may be some subtle differences in this particularly. But my understanding is it was the removal (or rather, the rejection) of sanctifying grace that led to susceptibility to death.
As a side note, such subtle distinctions as we are discussing here are very important to Catholicism, although not to many Catholics.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But as *I* understand it, the natural desires we have are good in themselves. It is the fall which turned them into "passions, lusts, and hungers." The idea is that we had them in an innocent state, we had them twisted by the loss of that innocent state,and most of our business on earth (and all of our business in Purgatory) is to set them right again.
You know, I'd say to some extent, we believe this as well. We don't believe that we should rid ourselves of our passions and desires, we simply believe we should be in mastery of them and that we should follow God's law in respect to them.
You see, we believe that having a mortal body is part of our fallen natures, yet we believe that having a body is extremely good. In fact, we believe that those who have died look upon being without a body as bondage. We believe that we will receive a corporeal body at the ressurrection, and this will be extremely liberating, that we will only then be capable of a fulness of joy.
Kinda complicates matters.
We are not gnostics. We do not believe having a body=bad. In fact, we believe quite the opposite. (That is, if I understand what gnostics believe :/)
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We believe that having a body is a necessary part of our progression toward exaltation, because of the temptations and growth we experience while in mortality. (basically what bev said)
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But as *I* understand it, the natural desires we have are good in themselves. It is the fall which turned them into "passions, lusts, and hungers." The idea is that we had them in an innocent state, we had them twisted by the loss of that innocent state,and most of our business on earth (and all of our business in Purgatory) is to set them right again.
Or perhaps I should say that through the fall, our wills became weak enough that our desires became our masters rather than vice versa.... that the Catholic definition of "passions and lusts" would be a natural desire that is placed in headship over the will. It's times like this that I like to point out that "Passion" and "Passive" share a common root.
The difference being that with desire, we want something, with passion and lust, we can't stop wanting it. Which brings us neatly back to Dagonee's favorite part of Perelandra-- taking the wavbes as they come to you.
This is very close to my beliefs. My understanding, though, is that this is posited as one of the possible mechanisms for the pre-fall state. My hazy recollection is that it is in accord with Church teaching but not accepted as a definite truth.
Edit: I believe it is part of Catholic teaching that humans had desires pre-Fall. It's the rest I think is "in accord, not official."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or perhaps I should say that through the fall, our wills became weak enough that our desires became our masters rather than vice versa
Maybe not that our wills become weak...Hm. The way I look it at it is that our physical bodies were new to us.
Well yes... but I don't look at it that way, you see?
I believe that the human voice was always what Lewis called, in Out of the Silent Planet, a voice with blood in it.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:We believe children cannot sin until the know good from evil. LDS doctrine tacks on an average age of 8 for this time. Though we believe that is somewhat arbitrary, (there may be children younger who understand sufficeintly, and children older who don't) we believe that God honors it, since He is the one who told us.
Ah, that's a major conflict. Reformed doctrine teaches that all children are born in sin, there is no age that they become aware of good and evil, they are born in iniquity and incapable of doing righteousness without the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.
And I have studied the Fall in detail, it's not a question of my doctrine not being "fall heavy" it's that most of my study has not focused on the nature of physical bodies, before and after the fall. It has focused, properly, I think, on what the Fall says about the nature of man and the nature of sin and how that affects us today.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ah, that's a major conflict. Reformed doctrine teaches that all children are born in sin, there is no age that they become aware of good and evil, they are born in iniquity and incapable of doing righteousness without the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.
I agree that this is where the major difference is. That's what I meant before when I pointed out that it's the different beliefs about baptism that finally clarified it for me.
Jim-me, I understand now. A subtle, but important difference.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, what I meant by "fall heavy" is that when you look at LDS scripture, a surprising amount of it is about the fall. Of course, a lot of it is about Christ's atonement too. The focus tends to be that in order to truly understand the atonement, one must understand the fall.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, Dag, I have to confess that beyond the idea that we continue to be fallen after we are cleansed of original sin, I'm having trouble myself picking out the differences of state.
Perhaps the way to state it is that "fallen" or "natural man" is what a human being is after baptism? I.E. with concupiscence and mortality, but not Original Sin.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We might be using the same terminology differently. Maybe it would help to clarify what we all mean by the term "original sin"
For instance, I differentiate between imputed sin and original sin
Here's an excerpt from the writings of Matt Perman that explains the difference:
quote:The Bible teaches that Adam's sin had two main effects on the human race. The first is that it is imputed to everyone. This means that we are all counted guilty for what he did. When Adam was tested in the Garden of Eden, He was acting as the representative of the entire human race. Therefore we share in the blame for his sin. What we are going to examine in this article is the second effect that Adam's sin had, called original sin. Original sin means that, because of Adam's first sin, we are all born with an evil nature that is against God. We all come into this world with a sinful nature. It is important to see that whereas imputed sin means that we share in the blame for Adam's sin, original sin means that we become polluted because of Adam's sin. Imputed sin most directly involves our legal standing, original sin most directly involves our moral character.
quote:BTW, Dag, I have to confess that beyond the idea that we continue to be fallen after we are cleansed of original sin, I'm having trouble myself picking out the differences of state.
Perhaps the way to state it is that "fallen" or "natural man" is what a human being is after baptism? I.E. with concupiscence and mortality, but not Original Sin.
I think the states, described on their own might be similar (I'm not convinced I understand LDS thought enough to say this), but when you include the differences in pre-Fall states as part of the definition of the post-Fall states, the difference is stark. And I think to take an encompassing view of Original Sin, one must include what was lost.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(to Belle) Ah. Then it's imputed sin that the Mormons disagree with.
Like bev pointed out earlier, we think that the Fall does leave us in a natural state that is 'an enemy to God'(as the Book of Mormon puts it), but that because of the Atonement, children and those who have not learned the difference between right and wrong are not held accountable for their sins. Hence the reason we don't practice infant baptism.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is interesting. I'd say that according to that exerpt, we believe in something very similar to original sin (with the exception of those not understanding the law being exempt from it), but vehemently do *not* believe in imputed sin.
Edit: Narnia beat me this time!
Back to an earlier comment, I thought that Protestants in general did not believe that children are sinful or need baptism--that that was one of the things they "protested" against in the Catholic church. Are there some Protestants who believe it and some who don't? Anyone know?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The imputation of guilt (as opposed to the imputation of sin) is an area of disagreement between some Protestants and Catholics. But it's still considerably closer, I think, than LDS teachings to either.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, the United Church of Christ, etc. practise infant baptism. Baptists, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Church of Christ, etc. do not.
The baptism of children was not an issue in the Protestant reformation -- it was the anabaptists who rejected it. (They were considered heretics by both Catholics and Protestants.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Linky? In the time I've been on Hatrack, I've heard Dana say very little about her actual beliefs. She usually just corrects inaccuracies and answers specific questions.
For a minister, she gives surprisingly few sermons. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, geez, don't make me use the search engine again.
I found it by looking up original sin, I think. If you limit it to dkw's user number, it should be pretty easy.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:For a minister, she gives surprisingly few sermons.
*looks at sermon files*
*laughs hysterically*
For five years, between 2 and 8 sermons every week. Not so many, now that I'm in a multi-staff church, though. Maybe I'll get bored and start preaching on Hatrack. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is a lot! You know, if you ever did want to preach here, you'd have a willing, entranced audience. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Preaching is an oral art form. Some of the worst preachers (IMO) are the ones who don’t understand the difference in writing to be read and writing to be spoken/heard.
Forum writing, with its conversational style, is somewhere between the two.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:We believe children cannot sin until the know good from evil. LDS doctrine tacks on an average age of 8 for this time. Though we believe that is somewhat arbitrary, (there may be children younger who understand sufficeintly, and children older who don't) we believe that God honors it, since He is the one who told us.
The important thing to remember here (when speaking of Mormonism) is that this state of innocence is only available because Jesus Christ suffered and died for us.
I'm enjoying this thread-- kudos to all you folks for keeping things civil and interesting.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Infant baptism in the Reformed faith is not about salvation but as a covenant sign. So, we do practice infant baptism because we believe the children of the believers are participants in the covenants.
Two excerpts from this link, a reformed discussion on infant baptism:
quote:One thing that must be understood when discussion [sic] baptism in the New Testament is that the New Covenant extends to children of believers. This is prophesied in Jer. 32:38-40 and indicated by Acts 2:39—“The promise is for your and for your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself.”
Emphasis in original.
quote:Presbyterians do not believe in baptismal regeneration or that baptism in any sense saves. Presbyterians and Reformed Christians believe that baptism is a sign to be given to those who are part of the covenant of grace. A person is not part of the covenant because of baptism; baptism is a sign given to those who are part of the covenant. Those who are part of the covenant are not necessarily saved; rather, children are brought up in the covenant so that they might be raised in the context of the family of believers, so that the church may provide the child with a “climate of plausibility” that would make the Christian faith seem real and vibrant and true. Baptism is administered in anticipation of that time when they will come to faith and receive the forgiveness of their sins and be normal, communing members of Christ’s church.
posted
Belle, do I understand correctly-- you see Baptism as a sign but not as imparting any inherent grace by having it done, right?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim-Me, yes. Baptism in itself imparts no saving grace to the individual. An individual can be baptised yet not be saved. And an individual can be saved and not baptised. I have no doubt that many people are regenerated when they are baptised, and that the regeneration accompanies the baptism, but it's not because of the baptism.
Baptism is a sacrament, and is to be taken very seriously, it's not meaningless. Everyone who is converted as an adult should be baptised by all means. We don't treat it as "optional" or unimportant, it's definitely important to us and I consider my own baptism when I was 12 to be one of the most important days of my life. Likewise, the days my children were baptised were very sacred, and special days to me.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
