Stephen168
New member
You might be right; the idea that having been with the disciples from the beginning was probably a requirement for both
- Status
Z
zerinus
Guest
I counted a maximum (possible) Apostles outside of the Twelve of one—or to all practical purposes, zero, for the reasons already explained.
Which doesn’t make any sense given the undisputed Apostleship of Paul.
zerinus
Stephen168
New member
Yes Paul was an Apostle but not part of the Twelve
All of the Twelve were Apostles but not all Apostles were part of the Twelve.
orthodoxwiki.org/Apostles
Z
zerinus
Guest
That is just somebody’s opinion. It provides no documentary or scriptural evidence to back up its claim. The relevant passage in that article is as follows:
The Apostle Paul (June 29) is also referred to as an apostle, though he is not one of the Twelve or of the Seventy . Other missionary saints are also referred to as apostles, though usually not as an initial title, but rather as an epithet, e.g., “Apostle to the North” (though some regard this usage as not traditionally Orthodox). Further, other saints have the epithet “Equal-to-the-Apostles” (in Greek, Ισαποστολος), usually because of their significant work in building up the Church. St. Paul shares the collective feast day with the Twelve Great Apostles. He was beheaded in Rome during the reign of Emperor Nero.
I agree that Paul was not one of the original Twelve Apostles (which is what passage is saying). Question is, when was he ordained an Apostle, and was he a successor to another dead Apostle—e.g. James? Both scripture and history are silent about that, which means that it cannot be ruled out. Some have argued that Paul was made Apostle before James was put to death, by which they mean the date when Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus. Well, that may be the date when he was called to the ministry by Jesus; but it is not necessarily the date when he was ordained an Apostle. We know that he travelled to Jerusalem three years after that event, and met Peter.
Galatians 1:
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother [not the one that was beheaded].
His ordination could have taken place then, or even at one of his later travels to Jerusalem. We just don’t know. History and scripture are silent about that, which means that it cannot be ruled out. Another passage that suggests a possible date for his ordination is the following:
Galatians 2:
7 But contrariwise, when they [the Apostles] saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles: )
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
We just don’t have enough information to be able to determine that. One thing is certain: he could not have become an Apostle without being ordained such; and that ordination could have only been given by the existing Apostles—as a successor to a dead Apostle.
zerinus
Stephen168
New member
For awhile I thought you didn’t understand how the Twelve could be Apostles but not all Apostles were members of the Twelve (in a logical way like: All sheep have four legs but not all animals with four legs are sheep). But now I realize that you know you must believe there were only 12 Apostles at any one time.
Because
clubi.ie/exalted/holyhand.htm
Because
- Peter gave the requirements to be one of the Twelve which limit the Twelve to the first century.
- Paul does not qualify
- If there are more than 12, Paul was not part of The Twelve
If there are only 12, then Paul is an exception. - If there is an exception once, there can be an exception anytime.
- If there can be an exception, why did the exceptions stop after the first century.
If there can be an exception anytime; why not 19th century America.
clubi.ie/exalted/holyhand.htm
Z
zerinus
Guest
Have no idea what you are talking about. Sounds like you have lost your plot. It seems you have lost the argument, and now don’t know how to wriggle your way out of it. Sorry to hear that. You win some and loose some!
zerinus
Stephen168
New member
The Great Apostasy was written in 1909 by James E. Talmage who later became a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I read it hoping to find the date/event of The Great Apostasy. He never gave one.
As I was reading a discussion of The Apostasy on a forum, I realized the Mormon definition of Apostasy was not a commonly held one. The LDS definition is centered on the divine authority of Christ’s Church. This is very handy because you can not see divine authority. This makes it very easy for a Mormon to prove the Apostasy. They just declare it so; easy as that. This is also why I have never (not that I look real hard) found a Mormon that would give a date. A date would have to be supported by events and events can be fact checked. The Great Apostasy was filled with warnings and prophecies; but no dates to check the prophecies.
I was intrigued when I noticed Zerinus gave an event in his case for the Apostasy, which was almost as good as a date. The event was the loss of the Twelve Apostles. Zerinus explained why this was important. The Twelve Apostles held the keys of authority. As he points out, this assumes a permanent council of Twelve Apostles. If it can be shown that the council of Twelve Apostles was never meant to be permanent, his position collapses.
According to Peter there are two requirements to be a member of the Twelve. The two requirements are:
a) Witness the resurrected Lord
b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth.
These requirements limit the council membership to the first century. After all the men that walked with the twelve, while the Lord walked the earth, died; no one else qualified. The Twelve was never meant to be on going.
Paul does not qualify to be one of the Twelve. And there is no narrative in the New Testament telling of Paul’s selection to the Twelve.
We know from the New Testament that there were more Apostles than twelve at any one time. Acts 14:14 refers to Paul and Barnabas as Apostles. They were ordained Apostles and to paraphrase Zerinus, “by whom and where and when we do not know.” Even in Zerinus’ world of ‘Paul replaced James,’ there are now 13 Apostles. There are more examples of Apostles in the New Testaments but 13, is more than 12, so I’ll stop at that. There is more data proving the existence of more than 12 Apostles than there is for Paul being one of the Twelve. Paul is an Apostle but not one of the Twelve.
Zerinus wants us to believe that Peter meant these requirements just for Judas replacements because Judas was a special case. There is no where in the New Testament or even Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History © 324 that verifies this claim. The only thing I can find special about replacing Judas as member of the Twelve is; it the only time it was ever done. There is no other place recording an Apostles being selected to the Twelve. When Eusebius refers to a member of the Twelve being replaced it is as the Apostle’s position of Bishop (Peter in Rome, James in Jerusalem) not as members of the Twelve. As the Apostles died, IF they were also Bishops, they were replaced by Bishops. They were not replaced by Apostles because anyone qualified to take there place was already dead.
All this could ever prove to a Mormon is the Apostasy didn’t happen because of the loss of the Twelve. They would claim another day or event; OR take a tip from James Talmage and don’t give any date at all. Just say it is so!!
As I was reading a discussion of The Apostasy on a forum, I realized the Mormon definition of Apostasy was not a commonly held one. The LDS definition is centered on the divine authority of Christ’s Church. This is very handy because you can not see divine authority. This makes it very easy for a Mormon to prove the Apostasy. They just declare it so; easy as that. This is also why I have never (not that I look real hard) found a Mormon that would give a date. A date would have to be supported by events and events can be fact checked. The Great Apostasy was filled with warnings and prophecies; but no dates to check the prophecies.
I was intrigued when I noticed Zerinus gave an event in his case for the Apostasy, which was almost as good as a date. The event was the loss of the Twelve Apostles. Zerinus explained why this was important. The Twelve Apostles held the keys of authority. As he points out, this assumes a permanent council of Twelve Apostles. If it can be shown that the council of Twelve Apostles was never meant to be permanent, his position collapses.
According to Peter there are two requirements to be a member of the Twelve. The two requirements are:
a) Witness the resurrected Lord
b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth.
These requirements limit the council membership to the first century. After all the men that walked with the twelve, while the Lord walked the earth, died; no one else qualified. The Twelve was never meant to be on going.
Paul does not qualify to be one of the Twelve. And there is no narrative in the New Testament telling of Paul’s selection to the Twelve.
We know from the New Testament that there were more Apostles than twelve at any one time. Acts 14:14 refers to Paul and Barnabas as Apostles. They were ordained Apostles and to paraphrase Zerinus, “by whom and where and when we do not know.” Even in Zerinus’ world of ‘Paul replaced James,’ there are now 13 Apostles. There are more examples of Apostles in the New Testaments but 13, is more than 12, so I’ll stop at that. There is more data proving the existence of more than 12 Apostles than there is for Paul being one of the Twelve. Paul is an Apostle but not one of the Twelve.
Zerinus wants us to believe that Peter meant these requirements just for Judas replacements because Judas was a special case. There is no where in the New Testament or even Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History © 324 that verifies this claim. The only thing I can find special about replacing Judas as member of the Twelve is; it the only time it was ever done. There is no other place recording an Apostles being selected to the Twelve. When Eusebius refers to a member of the Twelve being replaced it is as the Apostle’s position of Bishop (Peter in Rome, James in Jerusalem) not as members of the Twelve. As the Apostles died, IF they were also Bishops, they were replaced by Bishops. They were not replaced by Apostles because anyone qualified to take there place was already dead.
All this could ever prove to a Mormon is the Apostasy didn’t happen because of the loss of the Twelve. They would claim another day or event; OR take a tip from James Talmage and don’t give any date at all. Just say it is so!!
Z
zerinus
Guest
Thank you for your post. I think that I have already presented my case on the Apostasy adequately, both here as well as in my Blog, and I don’t need to add any more to it. Just a couple of points to add relative to what you have said in this post:
zerinus
The book Great Apostasy by Talmage is not my favourite book, and not the one that I would recommend. It was written a hundred years ago, when the Church’s understanding of the subject was not as well developed as it is today. Its approach to the subject in my opinion is too negative, and does not conform to my scriptural understanding of the subject.
That is easy to test. I will give you a simple test. Does the Catholic Church claim to be able to add to the canon of scripture? That answer is no. That is divine authority—lost!
The idea that the Apostasy occurred in the first century was not my invention. It is a fairly common belief among the LDS, and already mentioned by several other LDS writers, and you will find it written in publications several decades old. I happen to agree with that as being a good approximation, for the reasons already explained.
zerinus
Z
zerinus
Guest
PS. I just checked. In my Blog post I had given links to several LDS articles on the Apostasy. The last two articles (by Skinner and Jackson) put the date of the Apostasy to the first century. That idea goes much further back. It is nothing new. It probably goes back to the time of Talmage if not older. I know I have read it in many other publications.
zerinus
zerinus
Stephen168
New member
I read the articles by Skinner and Jackson; and they both do place the apostasy in the first century. Zerinus’ case for an apostasy is the same as Skinner’s, which was shown to be false in this thread and summarized in my post #47.
Jackson’s case was about the same as The Great Apostasy; warnings and prophecies with no dates. While Skinner claims the lack of the Twelve caused the apostasy, Jackson claims, “The Apostasy did not happen because the Apostles were gone; the Apostles were taken because the apostasy occurred.” I had to chuckle when in the next paragraph Jackson wrote, “The Apostles were kept on earth long enough to fulfill the divine command. They did not fail.” Jackson believes the Apostasy occurred during the Apostles watch, but they did not fail. Very interesting.
Yes, the LDS understanding has developed. I believe the wide availability and indexing of the writings of the Early Church Fathers has been a great help to the LDS understanding. The Restoration movement seemed to be great fans of Constantine. They believed when Constantine became Emperor of Rome; he took control and changed everything (Apostasy). The LDS movement being part of that movement was no different. With the easy availability and indexing of the Fathers of the Church, it is clear that Constantine had no effect on Christian Doctrine. By limiting their argument to the first century, they can avoid all that history that gets in the way. It also can give room to the ‘you can’t prove otherwise, so let me tell you a story’ crowd. (Review Zerinus’ posts #18, #37, #44) Of course as we have seen in this thread, there is still enough history available about the first century to show the fallacy of the apostasy.
N
NewSeeker
Guest
Zerinus –
You say that the Apostasy occurred in the first century. If this is statement of fact rather than faith, then it must be supported by factual evidence that can be reviewed by others. What’s your evidence that the Apostasy actually occurred in that century? NT prophesies are not evidence that an Apostasy occurred; they are evidence that predictions of apostasy were made. None of those prophesies are clear about the nature of the predicted apostasy – whether of individuals, of groups, or of the whole Church. The wording of every LDS proof text is ambiguous and can be used to support any of these three ideas. Mormons simply read their assumption that an Apostasy occurred into the text itself, although none of the verses that Mormons famously cite clearly and unambiguously state who or what will “fall away”. They only state, cryptically, that at some undefined point in the future there will be a “falling away” (apostasia). Again, there’s no clarity about who will fall away and from what, or even when it is supposed to occur. So clearly we can’t depend on LDS apologists’ use of biblical prophesies to prove the Apostasy occurred. What else is there? In previous posts you assert that since the LDS church is true, that proves there was an Apostasy (I’m paraphrasing your words). You base your assertion of the LDS Church’s truth on the witness of the spirit. There’s no way for me to tell by looking at you or reading your words whether you really received such a witness. Your receipt of a witness can’t be independently confirmed, and neither can you independently confirm whether I did or did not receive such a witness. Personal testimonies are therefore worthless if we’re interested in establishing objective, historical fact. They have great value in motivating us to do good, but personal testimonies have nothing to do with determining what events occurred historically. I don’t need to consult scripture or pray about whether George Washington existed and had a set of wooden false teeth, or whether Galileo was wrong and the earth really is the center of the universe. I can review the evidence and draw an appropriate conclusion on both points. The same goes for whether a Great Apostasy occurred. We can’t use your testimony of the LDS Church or biblical prophesies as evidence that an Apostasy occurred. Others have already definitively established that there were more apostles than The Twelve living and working at the same time, and that, given the criteria to be a member of the Twelve (you must have walked with Jesus and have witnessed his resurrection), the Twelve were not intended to be a permanent body with authority over the church.
So we’ve ruled out the following as evidence of the Great Apostasy:
So Z., what evidence do you have that an Apostasy occurred? You can’t use biblical prophesy, your testimony, or the death of the apostles as evidence. None of that is sufficient and any attempt to base an Apostasy on those evidences falls flat. Do you have anything else?
NS
You say that the Apostasy occurred in the first century. If this is statement of fact rather than faith, then it must be supported by factual evidence that can be reviewed by others. What’s your evidence that the Apostasy actually occurred in that century? NT prophesies are not evidence that an Apostasy occurred; they are evidence that predictions of apostasy were made. None of those prophesies are clear about the nature of the predicted apostasy – whether of individuals, of groups, or of the whole Church. The wording of every LDS proof text is ambiguous and can be used to support any of these three ideas. Mormons simply read their assumption that an Apostasy occurred into the text itself, although none of the verses that Mormons famously cite clearly and unambiguously state who or what will “fall away”. They only state, cryptically, that at some undefined point in the future there will be a “falling away” (apostasia). Again, there’s no clarity about who will fall away and from what, or even when it is supposed to occur. So clearly we can’t depend on LDS apologists’ use of biblical prophesies to prove the Apostasy occurred. What else is there? In previous posts you assert that since the LDS church is true, that proves there was an Apostasy (I’m paraphrasing your words). You base your assertion of the LDS Church’s truth on the witness of the spirit. There’s no way for me to tell by looking at you or reading your words whether you really received such a witness. Your receipt of a witness can’t be independently confirmed, and neither can you independently confirm whether I did or did not receive such a witness. Personal testimonies are therefore worthless if we’re interested in establishing objective, historical fact. They have great value in motivating us to do good, but personal testimonies have nothing to do with determining what events occurred historically. I don’t need to consult scripture or pray about whether George Washington existed and had a set of wooden false teeth, or whether Galileo was wrong and the earth really is the center of the universe. I can review the evidence and draw an appropriate conclusion on both points. The same goes for whether a Great Apostasy occurred. We can’t use your testimony of the LDS Church or biblical prophesies as evidence that an Apostasy occurred. Others have already definitively established that there were more apostles than The Twelve living and working at the same time, and that, given the criteria to be a member of the Twelve (you must have walked with Jesus and have witnessed his resurrection), the Twelve were not intended to be a permanent body with authority over the church.
So we’ve ruled out the following as evidence of the Great Apostasy:
- LDS interpretation of Biblical prophesy
- Your (or any Mormon’s) testimony
- The death of the apostles
So Z., what evidence do you have that an Apostasy occurred? You can’t use biblical prophesy, your testimony, or the death of the apostles as evidence. None of that is sufficient and any attempt to base an Apostasy on those evidences falls flat. Do you have anything else?
NS
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
That is the Mormon proof…the Mormon church exists, therefore there was a “great apostasy”.
That is the lone reason that Mormons will attempt to defend this idea. As without it, there is no need for a “restoration”. Thus, their religion is unnecessary and irrelevant, as is this entire conversation.
That is the lone reason that Mormons will attempt to defend this idea. As without it, there is no need for a “restoration”. Thus, their religion is unnecessary and irrelevant, as is this entire conversation.
Z
zerinus
Guest
I don’t think that anything like that was “shown” at all. I have presented my case, and it is available for all to see. There is no need to add any more to it. I will let others judge for themselves.
I think you are just nitpicking. That is two sides of the same coin. The initial Apostasy was that of the people, the early church members, or a large proportion of them. It took place during the lifetime of the Apostles. The Apostles could not prevent that from happening because they (the apostates) were exercising their God given freewill to do so.
The Christian church that emerged at the end of that dark period, however, was itself a victim of that Apostasy. It can only be described “Apostate” in the sense that it has lost the priesthood and Apostolic authority that it once possessed; not in the sense that all of its members are now apostate or wicked.
There is a very small element of truth in what you say here, and a huge dollop of error. Allow me to separate the truth from the error for you. The Restoration took place through the Prophet Joseph Smith in a predominantly Protestant world, and most (practically all) of the early members of the church were drawn (and continued to be drawn after Joseph Smith’s death) from that Protestant community, and these people unfortunately brought along with them into their new faith many of their false Protestant baggage. They could not easily leave that behind. The result was that their understanding of the doctrines of the Restoration were often colored or tainted with their false Protestant traditions. A good example is the doctrine of the Apostasy. Trouble was that Mormons were not the only ones who believed in the Apostasy. So did the Protestants. And LDS members naturally tended to equate the two, thinking that they are the same, which in fact they are not. A lot of the anti-Catholic sentiments that was expressed by the early Church members or in Church literature were the result of this misunderstanding. Joseph Smith himself was not guilty of that. He was a very great prophet, and had a far better understanding of the doctrines of the Restoration than they did. In his Teachings he often condemns Protestantism, but never Catholicism. But unfortunately the rest of the Church members were not as visionary as he was. Those passages in the Book of Mormon which talks about the “great and abominable church” etc (1 Nephi 13 & 14) does not refer to the Catholic Church, as the early Church members often assumed. A careful reading of the context and other passages in the Book of Mormon will reveal that that is not the case. You will only think it does if you look at it with Protestant colored glasses. There was an Apostasy, but not as the Protestants tended to see it. The Catholic Church is itself a victim of that Apostasy, not its perpetrator or culprit. It is not a wicked or evil institution, as the Protestants have historically asserted. The Catholic Church is a much more virtuous and honorable institution than the Protestant churches that have broken away from it. But luckily that has changed, and LDS have a much better understanding of their own theology today than their predecessors did.
Of course as we have seen in this thread, there is still enough history available about the first century to show the fallacy of the apostasy.
Not true! See above. I think that I have made my case. There is no need to go over the same ground again.
zerinus
J
J_C
Guest
please forgive my butting in here, but this sentence strikes me as a shift for z.
i can dimly recall zerinis saying that the protestint reformation represented a partial, or early, iteration of the “restoration” and that it was made complete with the advent of Joseph Smith family.
also, I have recently had a conversation iwth a local mormon who said the same thing to me in very clear and unambiguous language.
Rather than as z has stated it above, it was put forth that the Reformers were on the right track and had moved in the direction of Restoration, against the apostate Catholic Church.
now z appears to be saying that the Reformers were less “virtuous and honorable” than the Catholics from whom they broke away. While I have no argument with that particular sentiment, i wonder how this fits in with previous statemenst by mr. Z as well as at least a few other mormons, and whether this ins’t a shift in viewpoint.
J
J_C
Guest
OK, sorry.
then your position on this is different from the mormon gentleman I asked about this. We were having a wide ranging conversation. I asked how the LDS view the Reformation. He said that the Reformation was the beginning of the Restoration, a forerunner, but incomplete. The completion was accomplished with the coming of Joseph Smith Jr. He said that until the Reformation the Catholic Chruch was apostate, and that includes the eastern side. The Reformers attempted to correct the problems associated with the apostasy, and did manage to move in a positive direction, while the main body of Catholicism remained apostate.
I am certain I did notmisunderstand him on this because it caught my ear, and so I dwelt upon it for awhile. for your information this gentleman is about 60 y/o, a cradle mormon, a teacher in his ward. he seems to be thoroughly instructed in Mormon matters.
B
BartBurk
Guest
Here’s the only thing I can find that Joseph ever said about the Catholic Church. It’s from the King Follet sermon:
"The old Catholic church traditions are worth more than all you have said. Here is a principle of logic that most men have no more sense than to adopt. I will illustrate it by an old apple tree. Here jumps off a branch and says, I am the true tree, and you are corrupt. If the whole tree is corrupt, are not its branches corrupt? If the Catholic religion is a false religion, how can any true religion come out of it? If the Catholic church is bad, how can any good thing come out of it! The character of the old churches have always been slandered by all apostates since the world began.
Code:
"I testify again, as the Lord lives, God never will acknowledge any traitors or apostates. Any man who will betray the Catholics will betray you; and if he will betray me, he will betray you. All men are liars who say they are of the true Church without the revelations of Jesus Christ and the Priesthood of Melchisedek, which is after the order of the Son of God."
Z
zerinus
Guest
Mormons like Catholics have diversities of opinions about things, and the way in which they understand (or express) the same doctrine may not be identical in all cases. This could be because their understandings are different, or they way the try to express it may not be theologically accurate. Theology like any discipline requires clear thinking and clear expressions, and one should not expect that from all Church members, be they Catholics or Mormons. Sometimes the misunderstanding may be on the part of the hearer than the speaker!
I believe the Protestant Reformers were for the most part well-intentioned, but also misguided and seriously erring in doctrine. The Protestant movement, however, had some unintended but desirable consequences—even for the Catholic Church. There is no doubt, for example, that at the time of the Reformation the Catholic Church was deeply corrupt. It was the Protestant rebellion that eventually gave the Catholic Church the impetus it needed to introduce many genuine reforms through the Council of Trent. Had it not been for the Protestant rebellion, it is unlikely that those reforms would have taken place.
The Reformation also had some unintended but desirable consequences for the Restoration. It was because of the Reformation that eventually a government was setup in the United States with a Constitution that guaranteed religious freedom to all its citizens. Most of the early settlers in the US were people who had escaped religious persecution in Europe—both at the hands of the Catholics as well as Protestants. They were of diverse religious views, and they jealously guarded their religious freedoms, and wanted to ensure that their freedom to practice their religions as they pleased would not be curtailed by a government. Now if the Reformation had not taken place, and the whole of the Christian world was Catholic, and Catholicism was the “state religion” of the US, and the US Government was committed to defending that one religion and suppressing the others, then the Restoration in the US would not have had much chance of a success. So in that sense of the term I suppose you could describe the Reformation was a forerunner or prelude to the Restoration. But that does not mean that we owe any doctrinal or theological “debt” to the Reformation. No such luck! LDS theology and doctrine is unique, and entirely derived from modern LDS scripture and the Bible. We don’t owe a debt to anybody on that score.
The comments you have quoted from your Mormon friend are vague, and do not really mean a lot. If you can ask him to be a bit more accurate, and describe more precisely how the Reformation was “the beginning of the Restoration, a forerunner, but incomplete;” and how or in what ways “The completion was accomplished with the coming of Joseph Smith Jr.”? What did the Reformers do that was “incomplete,” that was then “completed” by Joseph Smith? Then I think your friend would have a hard time coming up with clear answers.
The best answer he could give I suppose would be that they broke off from the Catholic Church! Well, there was nothing “incomplete” about that. They made a complete break—except that they broke off in the wrong direction! But their “break” had the unintended but desirable consequences that I described above.
Another answer that he could give would be to point to some doctrinal agreements we have with Protestants, but not with Catholics. The trouble with that is that there aren’t that many. We come closer to the Catholic Church in doctrine than to the Protestants. Take for example the “infallibility of the Pope”. Neither of us believes in that; but we believe in the infallibility of our Prophet, which is not much different from the infallibility of the Pope! They don’t believe in the infallibility of anybody. We are closer to Catholics on that score. Infant baptism is not exactly a common ground either, because Luther accepted infant baptisms, which we don’t. Even Transubstantiation is not exactly a common ground, because Luther accepted a form of Transubstantiation, which we don’t. On the positive side, we accept the necessity of baptism, as the Catholics do, which they don’t. The same applies to the other Sacraments, importance of good works, the need for priesthood authority, and an ordained priesthood. The only thing that is left I suppose is the Immaculate Conception and the permanent virginity of Mary, which are not such fundamental doctrines as the Incarnation, the Trinity, and ordinances of salvation. I should also add that most of the opposition to LDS have come from Protestants rather than Catholics. So how Joseph Smith is supposed to have “completed” the work of the Reformation I have no idea. Perhaps you can ask him, and bring us word.
If you know him well, you might like to take a printout of this post (as well as your original questions), and show it to him, and see what answer he gives. If he disagrees, ask him to write it down for you and bring it here and we will talk about it.
zerinus
D
dosdog
Guest
D
dosdog
Guest
Montanism- , apocalyptic movement of the 2d cent. It arose in Phrygia (c.172) under the leadership of a certain Montanus and two female prophets, Prisca and Maximillia, whose entranced utterances were deemed oracles of the Holy Spirit. They had an immediate expectation of Judgment Day, and they encouraged ecstatic prophesying and strict asceticism. They believed that a Christian fallen from grace could never be redeemed. Prisca claimed that Christ had appeared to her in female form. When she was excommunicated, she exclaimed “I am driven away like the wolf from the sheep. I am no wolf: I am word and spirit and power.”
The belief that the prophecies of the Montanists superseded the doctrines proclaimed by the Apostles
education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/Montanis
newadvent.org/cathen/10521a.htm
The belief that the prophecies of the Montanists superseded the doctrines proclaimed by the Apostles
education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/Montanis
newadvent.org/cathen/10521a.htm
- Called by its followers “the New Prophecy”, this movement is known to us as Montanism after its founder Montanus, a convert to Christianity. Around the year 170 he began to proclaim to his fellow believers that he was a prophet, that he was the very mouthpiece of that Spirit which the Lord had promised would “teach all things and guide into all truth” (John 14:26; 16:13). Montanus was soon joined by two women, Priscilla and Maximilla who like him delivered oracles in a state of ecstacy, speaking not in their own persons but in that of the Holy Spirit.
- Montanus and his companions represented a revival of the apocalyptic spirit and announced the forthcoming end of the world. The Lord was about to return, and the new Jerusalem would be set up in the vicinity of the town of Pepuza in Phrygia. As preparation for the end of all things they purified themselves and cut themselves loose from their attachments to society. The Phrygians, as they were frequently called, fasted longer and more elaborately than other Christians and discouraged marriage.
theologywebsite.com/history/montanus.shtml
- Status