Catholics vs Mormons vs Protestants on the "Gates of Hell"

[BDawg]

Well, since Ignatius was appointed bishop by Peter and was a student of John, then clearly both Peter and John were in apostasy as well. Unless you care to assert that Ignatius was in apostasy from both apostles’ teaching by the time he wrote his letters. But mere assertion is not evidence. Do you have any evidence that Ignatius first held proto-Mormon views and then joined a heretical catholic movement? For that matter, without using LDS sources, what’s your evidence of proto-Mormon doctrines and church organization existing before 100 ad?

Hi NewSeeker,

Here is an entire book about this subject that has been put online for free. Maybe it won’t be enough evidence to convince you, but I suspect you will find we have more evidence than you thought.

 

[kevangreen]

(Cont’d from last post)

You’re sure that none of the other Apostles had been killed by then? (Actually, it makes no difference to me. Just curious as to whether you actually checked that assertion.)

I believe a lot of Catholics were a little shell-shocked in the 20th century when the Church had to admit that some of the “saints” probably didn’t exist. My point? There are a lot of Catholic traditions. And many of them have very little historical basis. In the case of Ignatius, there is reason to believe that his biography has been “enhanced” in Catholic tradition. See this website that quotes from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia.

How does a gate “win,” if not by keeping something in or out? Why invoke “gate” imagery at all, if Jesus didn’t mean that? In your interpretation, the word “gate” seems to have no reason for being there. Jesus might as well have said, “the oatmeal of hell shall not prevail against it.”

I agree, but the Body of Christ includes both the living and the dead. (I believe you guys would link this with the “Communion of the Saints,” or something like that, no?) So a time of apostasy does not destroy the Church.

the beauty of the catholic church is that we practice everything
that jesus did on earth. communion, and even confession
people say jesus never heard a confession
I say what of the criminal on the cross
not only does it show jesus heard his confession
but it also proves that you dont have to be baptized by water
to go to heaven or as mormons love dunkin sometimes more than once if they dont get it right.

 

[mfbukowski]

Well, since Ignatius was appointed bishop by Peter and was a student of John, then clearly both Peter and John were in apostasy as well. Unless you care to assert that Ignatius was in apostasy from both apostles’ teaching by the time he wrote his letters. But mere assertion is not evidence. Do you have any evidence that Ignatius first held proto-Mormon views and then joined a heretical catholic movement? For that matter, without using LDS sources, what’s your evidence of proto-Mormon doctrines and church organization existing before 100 ad?

I never said any of this
Go back and read your post. You said that the apostasy would have had to have happened around 50 AD. I agreed.

 

[mfbukowski]

So, the issue is one of whether or not the scripture passage from Mt. 16:18 supprts the argument for apostolic succession; Or, in other words, does the promise that the “gates of hell” would not prevail against Peter, also clearly intend to extend to Peter’s successors? If that’s the case, then I think one needs to look at the keys, and the promise in Mt. 16 made by Jesus:

Christ tells Simon he is (now) Peter, and on this rock he will build his Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against… (Peter or the Church). The text suggests that the gate of hell would not prevail against Christ’s Church, not that they would not prevail only against Peter. So, what you are suggesting is that the text means the gates of hell would not prevail against just Peter, whereas the text, given a fair reading, is saying that the gates will not prevail against the Church.

The next issue (I’m presuming) is how long will Christ’s Church last - Peter’s lifetime, or through successive authorities? Well, he gives Peter “keys to the kingdom” for “binding” and “loosing.” This is a reference to the OT keys of the “prime minister” for the Davidic kingdom. And it is a symbol for succession. Most readers of the day understood that the keys were a very important sign for the authority of a minister acting on behalf of the king. Don’t believe me? Read more about successionhere

And the Early Church Fathers certainly understood the truth of apostolic succession. Read here.

Peace,
-Robert

Robert
I know you have been away awhile – those are the exact issues I started this thread with, and BDawg is now addressing also.

I do not believe that the gates of hell prophecy has anything to do with apostolic succession, but with work for the dead.

I am not disputing whether or not Peter had keys to bind or loose in heaven.

The question is when were those keys lost.

Frankly, I am weary of this topic, and I think that BDawg, Snow and the others are doing a phenomenal job

I am convinced that I am right, and I have no further questions of the Catholics here on this topic at least. It has never been my purpose to persuade you I am right. I don’t believe that can be done here.

I was merely trying to see how strong your case is, and I have answered that question for myself. I believe I have answered all these questions earlier on this thread. If there is something new, I will be sure to chime in!

 

[NewSeeker]

I never said any of this
Go back and read your post. You said that the apostasy would have had to have happened around 50 AD. I agreed.

So the Apostasy was complete (meaning truth was corrupted, revelation was dead, and the Catholic church in charge) by 50 AD? Paul the Apostle would beg to differ I think he was alive at the time and writing. Perhaps there were some in apostasy; perhaps most were. But a total apostasy and Christ’s church completely gone by 50 AD, or even 90 AD (to be generous)? There is zero evidence to support that claim. There is evidence of a developing Catholicism that evolved naturally from the house based worship of the very first Christians (e.g. Ignatius’ teachings and their likely origin in the Christianity of John the Apostle; the Book of Revelation, which is filled with Catholic symbolism; the Didache). It’s much easier (and rational given the weight of the evidence) to believe that Catholicism began to evolve under the guidance of the Holy Spirit within a few decades of the Apostolic era than to believe that Peter, James, and John comprised a proto-mormon First Presidency, practiced and/or sanctioned polygamy, believed in temple marriage, etc.

BTW - I’ve read Bickmore’s book and his debate with Steve Clifford. I’m not convinced. To the contrary, it was only after reading Bickmore’s work (and reviewing other sources on the FAIR website) that I was finally convinced after a long spiritual journey to become a Catholic. The case for Catholicism is much stronger. The evidence for the existence of a total apostasy is non-existent. At most, all a Mormon has is that the original apostles did ordain a couple of new apostles, with no other indication whatsoever that they intended the office of apostle to be perpetuated (maybe they did, maybe they didn’t; the text doesn’t say one way or the other); that some sort of apostasy was predicted (but it’s unclear who was expected to be in apostasy or when it was expected to occur); and that Joseph Smith developed some doctrines that can perhaps be found in somewhat similar fashion in certain early Christian writings (and interestingly, and not surprisingly, his most famous doctrines are most parallel to the writings of the gnostic writings found in the Nag Hammadi codices and the Zohar of Kabbalism).

In contrast to the complete lack of positive evidence for a total apostasy, there is evidence for an evolving Catholicism that flowed naturally out of the experience out of Jewish, temple attending (that’s Jewish temple attending, not LDS temple attending) followers of Christ. It’s obvious to me that only in the worship of orthodox christianity are the surviving vestiges of Jewish temple practice and liturgy in evidence - and that’s exactly what Jewish converts to Jesus would do: express their faith in Jesus using Jewish liturgical forms.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hello BDawg,

I guess, I’ll start my response to your posts by addressing your claim the apostasy took place around the first century. The canon of the Bible was established around 400 AD. It appears to be a contradiction in the Mormon claim that the Bible is God inspired, through an apostate Church.

Now, I will address the Catholic interpretation of the scriptures, with “circumstantial” evidence of St. John’s “translation”, as Mormons call it.

The first Catholic interpretation can be provided in the very passage you presented, written by St. John himself. St. John wrote about the saying going abroad among the brethren, the saying being that the disciple should not die. Next, St. John provides clarification when he writes, “yet Jesus said not unto him, he shall not die; but, if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” I am bolding and underlining the verse that St. John makes the clarification below.

Joh 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
Joh 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
Joh 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

On the St. Paul appointment comments, it was clear Matthias was replacing Judas, according to scriptures. On St. Paul’s appointment there are no scriptures speaking of replacing anyone. I’m open to correction on this point if you or anyone else wants to provide a source.

There are times in all Churches, that things “shell-shock” men. For example, how do Mormons feel about the Church of Christ’s (Temple Lot) claim about the apostasy within the restored gospel? I only post this question in hopes you can see it appears bringing up other issues can distract from the current discussion. If you’d like to start a thread on the traditions of the Church, with “little” historical basis, as you say, I’m sure Catholics would be glad to jump in and offer Church sources. In my opinion, traditions are better explained from those within the Church than those outside the Church. I’m just pointing out that your source focuses on Christianity from a primarily Protestant point of view.

I think I stated my thoughts clear enough on the gates of hell passage and how it applies, with it being stated that the gates of hell shall not prevail, or shall not triumph against the Church. In short, I fail to see the implications of Jesus stating such to mean the gates of hell could not be gone through by His Church.

The last sentence you posted, “So a time of apostasy does not destroy the Church” is something we, Catholics, have been stating through many discussions on these forums. You know Jesus didn’t speak of the dangers of an apostasy when He witnessed the first apostasy as stated in John 6.

Joh 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

 

[BDawg]

Hi Prodigal,

1. I don’t get how your highlighting of the passage from John 20 changes anything. From a Catholic point of view, isn’t this a really strange passage? What was Jesus’ point?
2. I don’t know of any source saying that Paul replaced anyone. I just wondered if you know of any source saying he didn’t.
3. What do the claims of the Temple Lot group have to do with anything? I was talking about how some of the Catholics here seem to confuse “tradition” with “historical evidence.” Traditions can be used as historical evidence, if you can trace them close to the source, but very often they turn out to be fabricated. This happens with Mormons, too, so I’m not saying this as some kind of special condemnation of Catholicism.
4. And FURTHERMORE, your final quotation of John 6:66 proves beyond a doubt that you are trying to get me to accept the “mark of the beast”!!!

(That was just a joke, if anyone didn’t get it.

 

[BDawg]

and that Joseph Smith developed some doctrines that can perhaps be found in somewhat similar fashion in certain early Christian writings (and interestingly, and not surprisingly, his most famous doctrines are most parallel to the writings of the gnostic writings found in the Nag Hammadi codices and the Zohar of Kabbalism).

Hi NewSeeker,

I’m curious about which doctrines of Joseph Smith are “most parallel” to the gnostic writings. Care to elaborate?

 

[AshleyBelle]

Hi NewSeeker,

I’m curious about which doctrines of Joseph Smith are “most parallel” to the gnostic writings. Care to elaborate?

Go to the CAF Library The mormon view of the godhead is pretty much arianism.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I never said any of this
Go back and read your post. You said that the apostasy would have had to have happened around 50 AD. I agreed.

Hello mfbukowski,

NewSeeker brings up a very good point here. I’ve heard several Mormons date the apostasy during the first century and I’ve always brought up the fact that the canon of the Bible wasn’t defined until about 400 AD. That alone seems to indicate that Mormons accept a Bible from an apostate Church, if their claim is true.

Most estimates dating authorship of the books of the Bible date 22 books to be written after 50AD, with the last book of the Bible being written between 90 and 100AD.

This leads me to think you have contradicted the Mormon claim of a great apostasy in two ways, by dating it at around 50AD. My understanding of the apostasy is the Church became so corrupt it lost all truth and caused the priesthood to be invalidated. Knowing the apostles were the primary priests of the Church, I’d be interested in seeing your explanation of the following.

1. I seem to remember you stating the Church lost all authority after the death of the final Apostles, because of the great apostasy. Wasn’t 50AD prior to the death of any or the majority of Apostles?
2. If the great apostasy occurred around 50AD, wouldn’t that make, not only the canon definition of the Bible but, the authorship of the New Testament to be post apostasy?

I apologize if these questions are considered to be straying from the topic of thread. I am only asking these questions in response to the quoted poster’s claims.

 

[BDawg]

Go to the CAF Library The mormon view of the godhead is pretty much arianism.

No, it’s not, except in that Arianism was subordinationist, and so is Mormon theology.

In any case, the Arians weren’t gnostics.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hi Prodigal,

1. I don’t get how your highlighting of the passage from John 20 changes anything. From a Catholic point of view, isn’t this a really strange passage? What was Jesus’ point?

Jesus’ point was pointed out by the author of those scriptures, St. John himself. I apologize if my explanation was not clear. I’ll try once more.

Joh 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

The author talks about the saying the disciple should not die went abroad among the brethren.

The author then writes, “yet Jesus said not unto him…” This means Jesus did not say to him.

Next the author continues, “…He shall not die;” This is what St. John is saying Jesus did not say to him.

St. John explains what was said was, “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee.”

This seems to indicate the author’s clarification that Jesus did not say he wouldn’t die, he said to St. Peter, IF He willed it so, what business is it of yours. St. Peter had his orders and needed to focus on those assignments.

This was not a statement that John would not die. It was a correction to St. Peter to remain steadfast and don’t worry about the other Apostles.

1. I don’t know of any source saying that Paul replaced anyone. I just wondered if you know of any source saying he didn’t.

I only asked for a source as I found your question thought provoking.

1. What do the claims of the Temple Lot group have to do with anything? I was talking about how some of the Catholics here seem to confuse “tradition” with “historical evidence.” Traditions can be used as historical evidence, if you can trace them close to the source, but very often they turn out to be fabricated. This happens with Mormons, too, so I’m not saying this as some kind of special condemnation of Catholicism.

I used the question as an example as I felt it would address your “shell-shock” from a Mormon perspective. To be honest, I questioned whether or not you were straying from the subject of the gates of hell purposely. I’ll admit that neither comment, yours or mine, is on topic with this discussion. I also, questioned your use of a Protestant source to make your point with us. As I suggested, this is a topic for another thread and I’d prefer to use Catholic sources than sources outside the Church. In short, do you think it fair to use sources outside the Church to use as evidence of our Church?

1. And FURTHERMORE, your final quotation of John 6:66 proves beyond a doubt that you are trying to get me to accept the “mark of the beast”!!!

(That was just a joke, if anyone didn’t get it.

I got the joke. I’ve always found it ironic that those who walked with him no more, was told in verse 6:66. (I converted from Protestantism in 1985 )

Actually, you know that’s another topic I know Catholics and Protestants disagree on. What is the Mormon perception of the 666? We can discuss it on another thread if you wish. I have to go to a meeting now, start a thread and send me the link if you want.

 

[Snow]

Snow,

You told me the apostacy occured between the second and thrid centuries? Is this correct?

Citations please?

My belief is that the apostacy was a process that was mostly done with around the conclusion of the first century and the consequences of such apostasy played out for the next several hundred years.

What do you want a citation of?

 

[Snow]

Sorry ST.PETER wrote 13 books, my bad

Oh - okay. I didn’t know what you were getting at.

No one knows how many epistles Paul wrote.

There are 13 books/epistles in the NT with Paul’s name attached to them.

7 are considered genuine by the majority of scholars

4 are thought to be pseudepigraphic by the majority of modern scholars

2 letters’ authenticity has an even division among modern scholars.

There are, as referenced in the NT, 5 lost Pauline epistles. Additionally there are other epistles that are or were claimed to be written by Paul and other texts (not epistles) still that have been claimed to have been written by Paul.

 

[notsmart]

Go to the CAF Library The mormon view of the godhead is pretty much arianism.

It sure read like polytheism to me.

 

[Snow]

Go to the CAF Library The mormon view of the godhead is pretty much arianism.

I not sure if you are uninformed on theology in The Church of Jesus Christ, or Arianism. Maybe both?

 

[Snow]

It sure read like polytheism to me.

That’s exactly what some say about Trinitarianism. Funny, huh.

 

[mfbukowski]

There is evidence of a developing Catholicism that evolved naturally from the house based worship of the very first Christians (e.g. Ignatius’ teachings and their likely origin in the Christianity of John the Apostle; the Book of Revelation, which is filled with Catholic symbolism; the Didache). It’s much easier (and rational given the weight of the evidence) to believe that Catholicism began to evolve under the guidance of the Holy Spirit within a few decades of the Apostolic era than to believe that Peter, James, and John comprised a proto-mormon First Presidency, practiced and/or sanctioned polygamy, believed in temple marriage, etc.

.

RebeccaJ, here is another one.
I find it fascinating that you all have no problem with the Holy Spirit “guiding evolution” of doctrine, while asserting that there has been no revelation of new doctrine, because all we need was revealed in the bible.

It is just plain contradictory. Either there is Revelation (big R) or there is not. You guys tend to be very inconsistent.

 

[Snow]

RebeccaJ, here is another one.
I find it fascinating that you all have no problem with the Holy Spirit “guiding evolution” of doctrine, while asserting that there has been no revelation of new doctrine, because all we need was revealed in the bible.

It is just plain contradictory. Either there is Revelation (big R) or there is not. You guys tend to be very inconsistent.

You have to remember that there is a huge difference between average folks, average Catholics and Catholic scholars or those educated in Catholic history. If you talk with someone knowledgeable about Catholic belief and history, you get a much more accurate and reasonable view of doctrinal and historical development.

I guess that is not too surprising. I run across Mormons too that may not be aware of their own history.

 

[mfbukowski]

You have to remember that there is a huge difference between average folks, average Catholics and Catholic scholars or those educated in Catholic history. If you talk with someone knowledgeable about Catholic belief and history, you get a much more accurate and reasonable view of doctrinal and historical development.

I guess that is not too surprising. I run across Mormons too that may not be aware of their own history.