I am most interested in your responses to the claims made by the LDS apologist. Here are his specific arguments:
http://www.transporter.com/Mormonism/brb_rebut.html
http://www.transporter.com/Mormonism/brb_response.html
Rather than knocking down Mormonism with overused rhetoric I would appreciate it if we actually addressed the arguments this man is making.
Here is one point that I found interesting based on my own interactions here on this forum.
Steve Clifford presenting the Catholic perspective makes this observation:
Barry acknowledges with the above statement that he knows where the crux of the debate lies. We can debate endlessly about a variety of side issues such as Purgatory, Bishops vs. Apostles, Papal infallibility, gifts and miracles, “development” of the Papacy, the nature of God, and so on. However, the question still remains: “Did Jesus Christ leave His entire flock without any earthly shepherds for almost 1,800 years of total apostasy or did He keep His promise to be with His Church until the end of time through apostolic succession?”
As I compare the common points of discussion in the two author’s efforts I have to read the above point as so much posturing. He has categorized several components as “side issues” and that they are not worthy of the distraction they provide from the core discussion of an Apostasy. Thus he has contrived to minimize points of discussion which might refer to these terms. Let’s look at one that he takes exception to and that is Barry’s insert of a parenthetical side comment of no significance or impact on the nature of the point that Barry is really making in his.
Steve, after pointing out we don’t want to waste time discussing purgatory states:
Barry is also in error when he tries to equate “Hades” to the Catholic teaching on “Purgatory”, which is a place for purification after death for those who die in God’s grace and friendship but not totally purified in the holiness necessary to enter heaven. Those who go to Purgatory are assured of their eternal salvation, but after death they must first undergo purification (like a refiners fire), so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. On the other hand, those who are in “Hades” cannot leave and must endure eternal torment.
This feint is preceded by an appeal to the traditional dogma and then this nonpoint is hyper-emphasized to magnify the discussion point as being about Barry’s mistake on purgatory as if this error is somehow going to undermine the entire argument that Barry follows with. However, is this a legitimate observation? Let’s review the actual quote that Steve is referencing:
As stated by Barry:
But is there any reason to believe Jesus was speaking primarily of the earthly Church? On the contrary, the text says that “the gates of hell {Greek hades = “the world of the dead”} shall not prevail against it.” What are “the gates of hades”? Hades is not hell - it is the underworld, and in early Christian and Jewish thought it was believed to be a place of waiting where the spirits of the dead, both the just and unjust, remained until the resurrection. (If Jesus had been speaking in Roman Catholic terms he might have said, “the gates of Purgatory shall not prevail against it.”) Thus Tertullian (ca. 200 AD): "All souls, therefore; are shut up within Hades: do you admit this? (It is true, whether) you say yes or no…"3 The “gates of hades”, then, represent the “powers of death”, as Steve’s quotation of the verse from the RSV indicates, and “the sting of death is sin”. (1 Corinthians 15:56) Thus the text seems to be a promise of protection from the powers of death and sin for Christ’s assembly (ekklesia) of believers. For this reason Michael M. Winter, former lecturer in Fundamental Theology at St. John’s Seminary (Roman Catholic), in his excellent scholarly defense of the papacy, admits that “although some writers have applied the idea of immortality to the survival of the church, it seems preferable to see it as a promise of triumph over evil.”
Observe how a minor, passing, off the cuff comment is blown up in Steven’s rebuttal as if it is a worthy focus point of the debate, when in reality it is absolutely of no significance whatsoever. Is Barry’s comparison correct - not suitably - Does it matter? - It’s a parenthetical moment and not part of the debate as a point of fact.
The real point that Barry appears to be making is significant and is very germane to the discussion. It is that one of the revered Apostolic Fathers - Tertullian has evaluated the key scripture in Matthew and has addressed an interpretation of his day that all of the dead are assigned to Hades and thus a potential comparison exists that “gates of Hades” equals the “powers of death”. Having established that connectivity then Barry wonders how Steve can contrive to see the concept that gates of hell shall not prevail against “it” as if “it” represents the Church instead of the body of believers for whom Christ provides the escape. This then flows towards the focus point as Barry unites 1 Corinthians and Tertullian as the first witness against a “church” interpretation.
Barry then allows a respected Catholic writer to make his point that the promise in Matthew is more likely not a promise to the Catholic Church (that technically is yet to be born) but is instead a much grander and more significant point and consistent with Christ own statements of his mission that it references the fact that Christ will overcome death and hell to save the believers who believe on Christ’s name. This final point is punctuated with a Catholic theologian’s (Winter) interpretation which fundamentally affirms the point.
Michael M. Winter’s allusion is possibly to the verse in Revelation which reiterates in the terminologies of Matthew 16 concerning the keys of the kingdom and their function of ending the prevailing of death and hell as follows:
Revelation 1:18
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Catholic version:
Revelation 1:18 the one who lives. Once I was dead, but now I am alive forever and ever. I hold the keys to death and the netherworld.
When Steve responds he never addresses the point of Barry’s rebuttal. He ignores the key fundamental observation that two Catholic theologians both open and close the gate to a possible point that he should consider.
Instead, Steve tows the line and never breaks to acknowledge the point that is made. Thus, at least on this point, it ceases to be a debate and becomes moot in Steve’s obfuscation of the focus of Barry’s observation.
This is just an example of something that occurs over and over on Steve’s part. While from my observation it appears that Barry is very much focused on using the points of Steve’s comments and the dogma as the core of what he is trying to rebut, however, Steve sidesteps the specifics of the debate and simply repeats the dogma over and over as if that alone validates its irrefutability.
