R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
As an aside, I want to say thanks to all forum members (LDS, Catholic and otherwise) for participating on this thread. It’s been very interesting IMHO . 
Do Any Writings of the Early Church Fathers Support the Theory of a "Great Apostasy"
- Status
C
catholic-rcia
Guest
For us Christians this would be the Christ, Jesus is our great redeemer for the salvation and redemption of all mankind. You are following the other, in your doctrine this would be the brother of Jesus.
God Bless what is good in you
www.catholic-rcia.com
M
majick275
Guest
Those who follow Joseph Smith will receive that which he can give… Those who follow Jesus will receive the kingdom of God.
A
amgid
Guest
For your information (and others, you already know), Christ and His redemption are the most central feature in LDS theology and doctrine. There are more references to it in the Book of Mormon than in the Bible. Look up Jesus Christ in the Topical Guide to the LDS standard works. The following quotes are just a little taster:
2 Nephi 2:
6 Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.
7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.
8 Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.
9 Wherefore, he is the firstfruits unto God, inasmuch as he shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved.
Mosiah 3:
17 And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.
18 For behold he judgeth, and his judgment is just; and the infant perisheth not that dieth in his infancy; but men drink damnation to their own souls except they humble themselves and become as little children, and believe that salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.
Alma 7:
13 Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me.
14 Now I say unto you that ye must repent, and be born again; for the Spirit saith if ye are not born again ye cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore come and be baptized unto repentance, that ye may be washed from your sins, that ye may have faith on the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world, who is mighty to save and to cleanse from all unrighteousness.
D&C 19:
15 Therefore I command you to repent–repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore–how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.
16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;
17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;
18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit–and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink–
But you people have rejected the gospel of Christ, therefore you believe not. As Jesus said, “how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Matthew 12:34); or as Peter said, “whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not” (2 Peter 2:3). The Book of Mormon also has a word of counsel for you:
2 Nephi 28:
16 Wo unto them that turn aside the just for a thing of naught, and revile against that which is good, and say that it is of no worth! For the day shall come that the Lord God will speedily visit the inhabitants of the earth; and in that day that they are fully ripe in iniquity they shall perish.
The best thing that is in me is the testimony of the Holy Ghost that Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true.
amgid
D
dennisknapp
Guest
What does it matter if the BoM refers to Christ. Its a bible knockoff, why wouldn’t it?
Pretty harsh words. Do you have any historical proof for this besides your own interpretation of Scripture and words of some guy who existed 1700 years after the fact?
The old “testimony” of the HS. What if it is not the HS? What if you are decieved?
Peace
T
TOmNossor
Guest
His bride, the church. The church didn’t die like Christ and then get resurrected.
There is no evidence that anyone in the early church drew parallels between the death of Christ and the death of His Bride.
There are plenty of scriptures that point to an apostasy. Some of them may lend themselves to the interpretation that the apostasy was local, but many of them do not.
There are also some interesting things in the writings of the early church that can be considered. Hermas is best read as discussing the immediately at hand apostasy and the lesser organization that would emerge after it. From this perspective in a VERY SPECULATIVE way I have suggested that Polycarp and especially Ignatius behaved and wrote in a way that intentionally neglected to mention the impending apostasy, but anticipated it. This is speculative.
Also history teaches us that the church is unlikely to preserve (is likely to destroy) documents and histories that support heretical views. How much less likely are they to preserve more explicit apostasy texts than those present in Hermas? Very speculative, I acknowledge.
Tom, there is a lot of speculation in here … You’re speculating that the Church could not hold onto the fulness of truth, and that this was because God could not offer his miraculous intervention at that time.
God can always offer his miraculous intervention, but He has never done it such that reasonable people could not logically reject Him. Why did God allow horrible Popes? Why did God allow the Reformation? Why did certain Saints and certain Popes embrace things that are declared heresy? The omnipotence of God could prevent such things, but He does not.
“The Apostles knew they would die.” Yes. As Nibley suggests, knowing they would die they never made it clear who would succeed them at the head of the world wide church. The Apostles traveled and ministered to multiple churches, but they never established such a person. Instead they established Bishops who were to care for local flocks. These Bishops existed side by side with the Apostles, but preformed a very different function. The Apostles also left instructions on how to be a Christian, but not on who was in charge; why?
Over time the Bishops developed into more than just local authorities. First metropolitans, then patriarchs, and eventually the Pope. To be Catholic is to see this development as anticipated and preserving of tradition. I as a LDS agree with Tertullian and call this a usurpation. However, I recognizing the sovereignty of God see the Catholic Church as doing much good in preserving the Bible and the witness of Christ, despite the very human aspects of getting power.
My speculation is that as a feature or a defect of the perfect time for Christ’s coming, the church was not able to protect the fullness of the gospel. To spread and preserve Christianity the message needed to be taken to different locations. But this diffusion in the old world resulted in divergence. Heresy and truth grew side by side, and there was nothing that the church could do to define which was which. In the absence of “general authorities” like the apostles, orthodoxy of belief became the signature of what it was to be right with God. But in the absence of the authority to define this orthodoxy, what became orthodoxy was incorrect in SOME instances. Esoteric rites were purged from the early church because of the inability to control things like this.
Today things are different. There are SSPX Catholics and Name-Only-Mormons, but there is a place to turn for the definition of what it is to be Catholic or what it is to be Mormon. The Catholic Church has the CCC. The CoJCoLDS has the orthopraxy of sustaining our GAs and doing/believing other simple things. Such unity was not possible in the years after Christ’s resurrection.
I acknowledge that the “why” of the apostasy is very speculative. I suggest that the development of the Papacy is very speculative as well. The artifacts of the apostasy and the confirmations of the restoration are far more solid than the “why’s” of the apostasy. I do not claim the why’s I offer are absolutely correct either. I only suggest that they offer an explanation for the evidence that we see. Newman’s concept of “development” is also something that offers an explanation for the evidence that we see. cont…
T
TOmNossor
Guest
What we see in the evidence is that the Apostles and the bishops existed side by side each performing a DIFFERENT function. The Apostles died, and the bishops, Bishop of Rome included, took a number of centuries to “take over” the some of the roles the Apostles once preformed. Never did the bishops take over all the roles of the Apostles, so we cannot believe they were successors in a full sense. And for many years there was (in very human terms) a “power vacuum” at the top of the church. This was originally filled with councils called by a secular authority and lead by someone other than the Bishop of Rome. The decision of the council and future theological leanings were “enforced” through secular authority for many years.
If we look at Moses and the Levitical priesthood that emerged, we see the same thing. Moses once spoke “face to face” with God, but God took this away. There was once to be a “kingdom of priests” but the people could/would not stand with God. Emerging post Moses was a structure with authority that we all believe departed from truth AND ultimately did not recognize Christ. The Apostles are Moses and the head of the Catholic Church in 1830 is Ciaphus.
As a LDS it is easy to trace the departure from the Apostolic faith in a number of areas. Movement from the LDS position that evidence suggest is the earlier Apostolic position to the apostate non-LDS position. As a Catholic one must say this is development and true. Before Newman untenable concepts like the Maxim of St. Vincent de Lerins were lofted to explain how the faith was defined, but the evidence is that the emergence of Orthodoxy is not near so clear.
I believe the Apostles knew that “spreading the gospel,” and “growing the church” did not depend upon Apostolic authority. I believe that if this was important to them, they could have been infinitely more clear. Instead, the Apostles and God knew that spreading the gospel depended upon the Holy Spirit and the preservation of the Bible and the witness of Christ. This was something Bishops could do as they came in contact with various people and ordained new Bishops/Presbyters. It was not necessary for supernatural public revelation to stay on the earth (we both must agree on this). It was not necessary from there to be a singular head of the church (at least in the early years after the departure of the Apostles we both much agree on this).
Christ and the church did not “fail.” The authority of the Apostles was not necessary to perform the tasks necessary of the church, and it was not passed on to Bishops. Over time as men do they took power to themselves, but God’s sovereign plan was not frustrated by this.
The departure from the “Abba, Father” the ancient Jews, Christ, and the Apostles knew was unfortunate, but few people actually worship the concept of God created by Augustine and Aquinas (I believe even Aquinas realized this before he died). The God I know is more than the God Aquinas explained. I suspect most Christians, Catholic, Protestant, or LDS know God in a way somewhat (or largely) incompatible with the impassible, immovable, … God of Aquinas.
It seems I repeated myself. I probably do this a lot, but I noticed today. Sorry.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
A note on the totality of the apostasy of authority and how this was different than past times.
I personally believe that local bishops had valid authority for some period of time. I believe local bishops could not decide finer points of theology and meet in councils to make decisions for the world wide church.
The apostasy of authority was originally the loss of the Apostolic authority.
Ciaphus had some lesser authority while Jesus preached.
The Jewish people had less than God called them to have after Moses descended from the mountain to find the worship of the golden calf.
I do not completely disagree when one suggest that the history of apostasy does not show a total absence of any authority. However, I believe the history of apostasy shows the world wide leadership position is regularly lost and restored. This is what I can defend as the apostasy.
Roger Keller was a Presbyterian minister who became a LDS. He was called of God to bring people to Christ, but latter he recognized the fullness and became a LDS. Now he brings people to Christ AND participates in valid ordinances with authority for those ordinances AND he sustains the prophet of God as a source of spiritual guidance.
The Catholic Church speaks of heresy and apostasy. In Catholic lingo, Apostasy is a complete departure from the faith, heresy is the embracing of wrong beliefs, non-orthodoxy. LDS cannot use the term “apostasy” this way. We mean that there is an apostasy of authority. History does support the idea that the higher authority has never been absent from the earth at times.
More than this, from a LDS perspective, it is obvious that the highest authority is absent in the Catholic Church because you (by your own acknowledgement) cannot receive supernatural public revelation. This is the type of revelation received by Peter and Moses.
So I personally have no problem with the thought that the lesser authority existed within the Catholic Church for many years. In unison with James Barker, I can say that I think the decision contra St. Cyprian to accept non-authoritative Baptism was a mistake that may impact valid authority (even valid lesser authority). But when God the Father and God the Son called the prophet Joseph AND when Peter, James, and John bestowed upon Joseph and Oliver Cowdery the higher authority; the Catholic authority was on the way into obscurity just as Ciaphus’s authority ultimately vanished.
This is the most consistent view of history that I can see, but there are others. Those others of course include the gradual development of latent authority as espoused by the Catholic Church.
Charity, TOm
I personally believe that local bishops had valid authority for some period of time. I believe local bishops could not decide finer points of theology and meet in councils to make decisions for the world wide church.
The apostasy of authority was originally the loss of the Apostolic authority.
Ciaphus had some lesser authority while Jesus preached.
The Jewish people had less than God called them to have after Moses descended from the mountain to find the worship of the golden calf.
I do not completely disagree when one suggest that the history of apostasy does not show a total absence of any authority. However, I believe the history of apostasy shows the world wide leadership position is regularly lost and restored. This is what I can defend as the apostasy.
Roger Keller was a Presbyterian minister who became a LDS. He was called of God to bring people to Christ, but latter he recognized the fullness and became a LDS. Now he brings people to Christ AND participates in valid ordinances with authority for those ordinances AND he sustains the prophet of God as a source of spiritual guidance.
The Catholic Church speaks of heresy and apostasy. In Catholic lingo, Apostasy is a complete departure from the faith, heresy is the embracing of wrong beliefs, non-orthodoxy. LDS cannot use the term “apostasy” this way. We mean that there is an apostasy of authority. History does support the idea that the higher authority has never been absent from the earth at times.
More than this, from a LDS perspective, it is obvious that the highest authority is absent in the Catholic Church because you (by your own acknowledgement) cannot receive supernatural public revelation. This is the type of revelation received by Peter and Moses.
So I personally have no problem with the thought that the lesser authority existed within the Catholic Church for many years. In unison with James Barker, I can say that I think the decision contra St. Cyprian to accept non-authoritative Baptism was a mistake that may impact valid authority (even valid lesser authority). But when God the Father and God the Son called the prophet Joseph AND when Peter, James, and John bestowed upon Joseph and Oliver Cowdery the higher authority; the Catholic authority was on the way into obscurity just as Ciaphus’s authority ultimately vanished.
This is the most consistent view of history that I can see, but there are others. Those others of course include the gradual development of latent authority as espoused by the Catholic Church.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Arguing against another apostasy.
First, when a Catholic makes this argument they sound quite Jewish. And the Jews missed Christ.
Also, that the CoJCoLDS once had valid authority from God but no longer does seems unlikely to mean that the Catholic Church now has that authority back. But I acknowledge that to be a restorationist (or a reformist or a Catholic who rejected Ciaphus) is to open the door for apostasy and restoration.
I have in the past suggested that I have seldom seen a group leave more than faint hints that an apostasy was at hand. As a result of this, I refuse to not recognize that it is God to whom I pray for guidance. Brigham Young was quite clear that the saints should not follow him blindly.
I am a believer in authority and I will look for this valid authority when I look for God’s church, but I am a theist first, a Christian second, and a LDS third. I have faith that God knows me enough to lead me.
So I think the best read of LDS doctrine from the earliest points is that this is the last dispensation and therefore there will not be an apostasy and restoration, but I refuse to close my eyes. I am less convinced that the early church taught against the apostasy as we have, but
I have spent a lot of time looking at the authority of absence of authority in the Catholic Church. I have spent a lot of time on another religion (though not near as much). And I have even spent a little time on a restoration movement. None of these efforts have convinced me that the claims of these folks are stronger than the CoJCoLDS.
I have been given by God some ability to read and study. I will use this to know Him better. I have determined that studying multi-verse theory, abiogenesis explanations, and the “natural” psychology for religions experiences as atheist would ask me to do is a waste of time. I find it quite impossible that I could be converted to atheism, and my reward would be an atheist funeral (“All dressed up and no place to go.” –Peterson). Other than this however, I will spend time trying to find truth. I believe there is truth outside the CoJCoLDS and I will search for it. I do not believe God desires for me to align myself with a church other than the CoJCoLDS, but I believe as a product of my search for truth I will put myself in places that God can influence me if He chooses. To be honest, this is something I have learned from a friend of mine who is Catholic. But I wonder how seriously those who claim the CoJCoLDS is silly or ridiculous have pursued this path. I intend to be as close to perfectly united/aligned with God as I, aided by Him can be. Or perhaps I will be merely invincibly ignorant.
Charity, TOm
First, when a Catholic makes this argument they sound quite Jewish. And the Jews missed Christ.
Also, that the CoJCoLDS once had valid authority from God but no longer does seems unlikely to mean that the Catholic Church now has that authority back. But I acknowledge that to be a restorationist (or a reformist or a Catholic who rejected Ciaphus) is to open the door for apostasy and restoration.
I have in the past suggested that I have seldom seen a group leave more than faint hints that an apostasy was at hand. As a result of this, I refuse to not recognize that it is God to whom I pray for guidance. Brigham Young was quite clear that the saints should not follow him blindly.
I am a believer in authority and I will look for this valid authority when I look for God’s church, but I am a theist first, a Christian second, and a LDS third. I have faith that God knows me enough to lead me.
So I think the best read of LDS doctrine from the earliest points is that this is the last dispensation and therefore there will not be an apostasy and restoration, but I refuse to close my eyes. I am less convinced that the early church taught against the apostasy as we have, but
I have spent a lot of time looking at the authority of absence of authority in the Catholic Church. I have spent a lot of time on another religion (though not near as much). And I have even spent a little time on a restoration movement. None of these efforts have convinced me that the claims of these folks are stronger than the CoJCoLDS.
I have been given by God some ability to read and study. I will use this to know Him better. I have determined that studying multi-verse theory, abiogenesis explanations, and the “natural” psychology for religions experiences as atheist would ask me to do is a waste of time. I find it quite impossible that I could be converted to atheism, and my reward would be an atheist funeral (“All dressed up and no place to go.” –Peterson). Other than this however, I will spend time trying to find truth. I believe there is truth outside the CoJCoLDS and I will search for it. I do not believe God desires for me to align myself with a church other than the CoJCoLDS, but I believe as a product of my search for truth I will put myself in places that God can influence me if He chooses. To be honest, this is something I have learned from a friend of mine who is Catholic. But I wonder how seriously those who claim the CoJCoLDS is silly or ridiculous have pursued this path. I intend to be as close to perfectly united/aligned with God as I, aided by Him can be. Or perhaps I will be merely invincibly ignorant.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
quote=Robert in SD TOm’s strongest argument is that, “but for” the concept of development in doctrine Catholicism would easily be shown to be apostate. This is not much of an argument, since Catholicism has accepted the concept of development in doctrine from the beginning. Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pp.6ff. For example, St. Gregory the Great states: “With the progress of the times the knowledge of the spiritual fathers increased; for, in the Science of God, Moses was more instructed that Abraham, the Prophets more than Moses, the Apostles more than the Prophets.” (in Ezechielem lib. 2 hom. 4, 12).
[/quote]
Thank you for your comments.
I do say that if development is rejected then it is simple to show that Catholicism is false. But I also say that it is best to view Catholicism as if Newman’s theory were viable, and from this position I still find it lacking.
Did the “co-equal” structure emerging from Nicea “preserve the type” or “have early anticipation” of the “subordinationism was pre-Nicea orthodoxy?”
Did the “creation ex nihilo” belief DEPART from the creation ex materia of Justin Martyr and seemingly of Clement of Rome?
Was Vatican I’s definition of Papal Infallibility an appropriate way of developing?
What about the “developments” (that seem to continually be thrust before me as I interact with Catholics and the SSPX) of Vatican II and the definition of “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus?”
I think the above question are worth consideration even when accepting Newman’s theories. Where I able to demand that a single one of the above was not a valid development in Newman’s (basically universally accepted) framework, the Catholic Church is false and we can dismiss it without further consideration. As the above questions impact upon history and the idea of preservation of Tradition, they do require explanation even if the explanation does not allow a dismissal of Catholicism. I cannot as yet claim that any of the above violated Newman’s characteristics of a valid development, but there is some notable CHANGES.
The question you seem to be suggesting is the only valid one I ask is, “Can the position embraced by the Catholic Church and influenced by Newman’s essay be considered a valid development within the framework of Newman’s definition of a valid development?” Orestes Brownson argues powerfully (in the essay I linked above, and I found because an SSPX friend sent me to it when I was defending Vatican II) that Newman is not Catholic (in his though and is still protestant in his though) when he advocates his position on development. There are also many other Newman detractors from this timeframe, but I have not sought them out.
It is my position that I cannot prove the Catholic Church violates its principle of preservation of Tradition, but I can show many examples of when it might have violated Tradition. Such radical development in the admitted absence of supernatural public revelation, calls into question the foundation of the Catholic Church. This is my position on these issues.
In addition each time these developments are from something that Joseph Smith restored, the validity of the restoration is supported.
Cont…
[/quote]
Thank you for your comments.
I do say that if development is rejected then it is simple to show that Catholicism is false. But I also say that it is best to view Catholicism as if Newman’s theory were viable, and from this position I still find it lacking.
Did the “co-equal” structure emerging from Nicea “preserve the type” or “have early anticipation” of the “subordinationism was pre-Nicea orthodoxy?”
Did the “creation ex nihilo” belief DEPART from the creation ex materia of Justin Martyr and seemingly of Clement of Rome?
Was Vatican I’s definition of Papal Infallibility an appropriate way of developing?
What about the “developments” (that seem to continually be thrust before me as I interact with Catholics and the SSPX) of Vatican II and the definition of “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus?”
I think the above question are worth consideration even when accepting Newman’s theories. Where I able to demand that a single one of the above was not a valid development in Newman’s (basically universally accepted) framework, the Catholic Church is false and we can dismiss it without further consideration. As the above questions impact upon history and the idea of preservation of Tradition, they do require explanation even if the explanation does not allow a dismissal of Catholicism. I cannot as yet claim that any of the above violated Newman’s characteristics of a valid development, but there is some notable CHANGES.
The question you seem to be suggesting is the only valid one I ask is, “Can the position embraced by the Catholic Church and influenced by Newman’s essay be considered a valid development within the framework of Newman’s definition of a valid development?” Orestes Brownson argues powerfully (in the essay I linked above, and I found because an SSPX friend sent me to it when I was defending Vatican II) that Newman is not Catholic (in his though and is still protestant in his though) when he advocates his position on development. There are also many other Newman detractors from this timeframe, but I have not sought them out.
It is my position that I cannot prove the Catholic Church violates its principle of preservation of Tradition, but I can show many examples of when it might have violated Tradition. Such radical development in the admitted absence of supernatural public revelation, calls into question the foundation of the Catholic Church. This is my position on these issues.
In addition each time these developments are from something that Joseph Smith restored, the validity of the restoration is supported.
Cont…
T
TOmNossor
Guest
quote=Robert in SD Regarding the citation to ECF authority, I think that TOm makes the best possible argument for the LDS church from the position that apostate “truths” are evidence of a difference of opinion that existed at the time of the early Church. To focus my point, I am willing to concede - arguendo - that one can parse statements taken from the writings of the ECFs and other early christian writers to support the hypothesis that certain theological ideas that existed in the early church were rejected by the leaders of the early Christian church. But, even if that is a given, one must ask whether that - in and of itself - is evidence of a great apostasy. I do not think so, although it is evidnece of apostasy. The support for early LDS beliefs, however, comes from adopting the apostate position as opposed to that which was contemporaneously espoused as the catholic or universally accepted understanding. Again, I do not find this postion to be persuasive, and that is without even questioning the veracity of the espoused source of “early LDS” doctrine.
[/quote]
In a number of instances I make a more bold claim than this. My favorite example, and the one that I think contributes to centuries of problems (I called it a foundation slip), is creation ex nihilo. I claim along with LDS and non-LDS scholars that before Justin Martyr no Christian or Jew believed in creation ex nihilo. The few statements that seem to point to creation ex nihilo are either completely compatible with creation ex materia or a common way of speaking for those who embrace creation ex materia. So not only is the LDS position prevalent it is earlier and universal.
quote=Robert in SD Nothing in the sources quoted by TOm shows concern by early Christian writers that members of the Church are falling away in great numbers. To the contrary, history evidences the emergence of localized apostates that speak out against the established Church hierarchy, but the sources do not evidence the hierarchy apostasizing from what has been taught to them by the Apostles. Similarly, there is no evidence of outside sources hostile to the christian church addressing a massive “falling away” or total apostasy.
[/quote]
I guess I will post something more on Hermas in a few posts. Hermas does say the church is coming to a close AND a lesser organization will replace it.
Socrates in the 4th century says that no two churches believe the same thing. Many scriptures speak of a falling away such that total departure is at least as good if not a better interpretation. Yes, their were local apostasy, but they were everywhere such that no two churches believed the same. You expect me to believe that God came to the rescue and fixed all this mess so the perfect orthodoxy emerged? Is that how He did things in the past? In the past he supplanted the apostate group with a restoration. Who is more true: First Temple Cult Jews vs. Second Temple Cult Jews, Jews vs. Christians, Catholics vs. LDS?
I am not sure exactly what outside source you are looking for. There were certainly groups like the Montanists and Gnostics and … that said the emerging orthodoxy was wrong. Many of the writings and positions of these folks didn’t survive, but we know they disagreed with the emerging orthodox.
Cont…
[/quote]
In a number of instances I make a more bold claim than this. My favorite example, and the one that I think contributes to centuries of problems (I called it a foundation slip), is creation ex nihilo. I claim along with LDS and non-LDS scholars that before Justin Martyr no Christian or Jew believed in creation ex nihilo. The few statements that seem to point to creation ex nihilo are either completely compatible with creation ex materia or a common way of speaking for those who embrace creation ex materia. So not only is the LDS position prevalent it is earlier and universal.
- Pre-Nicea subordination (and the distinctiveness of the members of the Trinity), 2)Authoritative Baptism, 3)Supernatural public revelation to guide the church, and 4)Deification … are other examples of universal and earlier LDS views that gave way to Catholic developments (in fairness, Catholics still believe in deification, but they have neglected it for many years).
quote=Robert in SD Nothing in the sources quoted by TOm shows concern by early Christian writers that members of the Church are falling away in great numbers. To the contrary, history evidences the emergence of localized apostates that speak out against the established Church hierarchy, but the sources do not evidence the hierarchy apostasizing from what has been taught to them by the Apostles. Similarly, there is no evidence of outside sources hostile to the christian church addressing a massive “falling away” or total apostasy.
[/quote]
I guess I will post something more on Hermas in a few posts. Hermas does say the church is coming to a close AND a lesser organization will replace it.
Socrates in the 4th century says that no two churches believe the same thing. Many scriptures speak of a falling away such that total departure is at least as good if not a better interpretation. Yes, their were local apostasy, but they were everywhere such that no two churches believed the same. You expect me to believe that God came to the rescue and fixed all this mess so the perfect orthodoxy emerged? Is that how He did things in the past? In the past he supplanted the apostate group with a restoration. Who is more true: First Temple Cult Jews vs. Second Temple Cult Jews, Jews vs. Christians, Catholics vs. LDS?
I am not sure exactly what outside source you are looking for. There were certainly groups like the Montanists and Gnostics and … that said the emerging orthodoxy was wrong. Many of the writings and positions of these folks didn’t survive, but we know they disagreed with the emerging orthodox.
Cont…
T
TOmNossor
Guest
quote=Robert in SD I find it interesting that the LDS position must acknowledge the authority that existed in the Church at the time the Scriptures were canonized… yet it must also take the position that shortly after the death of the last apostle the Church apostasized. Does a similar factual inconsistency exist within the Catholic faith? I do not think so.
[/quote]
I am not sure you understood what I was saying. I am saying that the authority to define the Bible is something the CoJCoLDS does not have to recognize in the Catholic Church. The Bible is sufficient as a collection of inspired books by men without authority, not inerrant or perfect. Are you sure you read my post?
Robert in SD:
Anyway, as best I can tell from my BIASED position my intellect and my spiritual witness direct me to be a LDS. If it were not for one Catholic in my life, I could easily say that to be Catholic is to ignore, marginalize, or neglect the CoJCoLDS. History and scriptures so obviously point us all to the truth of the CoJCoLDS, seemingly intelligent Catholics are just unwilling to stand tall as a LDS by following where the evidence directs. Reason and history be damned.
Charity, TOm
[/quote]
I am not sure you understood what I was saying. I am saying that the authority to define the Bible is something the CoJCoLDS does not have to recognize in the Catholic Church. The Bible is sufficient as a collection of inspired books by men without authority, not inerrant or perfect. Are you sure you read my post?
Robert in SD:
You are certainly welcome to your belief. The only person on this thread who has advocated something similar to this is a Catholic, so perhaps it is the Catholics who care too little for evidence.
Anyway, as best I can tell from my BIASED position my intellect and my spiritual witness direct me to be a LDS. If it were not for one Catholic in my life, I could easily say that to be Catholic is to ignore, marginalize, or neglect the CoJCoLDS. History and scriptures so obviously point us all to the truth of the CoJCoLDS, seemingly intelligent Catholics are just unwilling to stand tall as a LDS by following where the evidence directs. Reason and history be damned.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Now that I have very intentionally said what I said in my last post (at the end), I would like to suggest it is not the only option. I think Amgid said that Catholics are not humble enough to accept the restoration. I think Robert said LDS do not use reason to aid in their conviction to the CoJCoLDS. Dennis seemed to say the same thing. And Oat Soda, who won’t spend 30 minutes reading all the Clement of Rome wrote, also is convinced LDS are ignorant or ignoring the truth.
There is a horror associated with trying to truly know someone. I have a Catholic friend who knows more about the Catholic Church and more about the CoJCoLDS (except that it is true more on this in a bit) than I do. And yet he is Catholic. I cannot claim he does not pray. I cannot claim he does not read the LDS works. I cannot claim he does not study LDS apologetics. And still he is Catholic. Where it not for this friend I would happily offer up that it is the Catholics who are ignorant, deluded, BIASED, afraid, prideful, … How can anyone not know what seems so clear to me (almost all the time, except when I get into someone else’s head).
I can tell you that I have been to mass in the last couple of months. I have spent an hour in an adoration chapel to see if Christ was there (about 3 years ago). I have offered Catholic apologetics so I could understand what is being put forth. I was once a Catholic. And after being a LDS without much of a spiritual testimony, I asked God if He wanted me to be Catholic again.
I am BIASED, and I doubt you know me as I know my Catholic friend, but I know that you don’t know when you suggest that to be a LDS is to “take leave of your senses.” To “damn history and reason.” “It boils down to wishful thinking.”
And I know that Chris does not know my Catholic friend when he suggest to not be Catholic is to not be humble enough to see the apostasy.
Briefly, I want to suggest that the ex-Mormon Catholics here AND the large number of ex-Catholic Mormons (myself being one) do not speak very loudly to me. Departure from ones faith is a complex experience. Few ex-Mormons left the religion I embrace (Cardinal Newman might say they had a “failure of imagination” which is what he essentially said of Dollinger). Few ex-Catholics have read Newman, or tried to find Christ in the Eucharist.
My ideas on religion allow people to move from faster to slower and slower to faster escalators as we march (because it is not just a ride) toward God. God waits for all of us at the top.
Charity, TOm
There is a horror associated with trying to truly know someone. I have a Catholic friend who knows more about the Catholic Church and more about the CoJCoLDS (except that it is true more on this in a bit) than I do. And yet he is Catholic. I cannot claim he does not pray. I cannot claim he does not read the LDS works. I cannot claim he does not study LDS apologetics. And still he is Catholic. Where it not for this friend I would happily offer up that it is the Catholics who are ignorant, deluded, BIASED, afraid, prideful, … How can anyone not know what seems so clear to me (almost all the time, except when I get into someone else’s head).
I can tell you that I have been to mass in the last couple of months. I have spent an hour in an adoration chapel to see if Christ was there (about 3 years ago). I have offered Catholic apologetics so I could understand what is being put forth. I was once a Catholic. And after being a LDS without much of a spiritual testimony, I asked God if He wanted me to be Catholic again.
I am BIASED, and I doubt you know me as I know my Catholic friend, but I know that you don’t know when you suggest that to be a LDS is to “take leave of your senses.” To “damn history and reason.” “It boils down to wishful thinking.”
And I know that Chris does not know my Catholic friend when he suggest to not be Catholic is to not be humble enough to see the apostasy.
Briefly, I want to suggest that the ex-Mormon Catholics here AND the large number of ex-Catholic Mormons (myself being one) do not speak very loudly to me. Departure from ones faith is a complex experience. Few ex-Mormons left the religion I embrace (Cardinal Newman might say they had a “failure of imagination” which is what he essentially said of Dollinger). Few ex-Catholics have read Newman, or tried to find Christ in the Eucharist.
My ideas on religion allow people to move from faster to slower and slower to faster escalators as we march (because it is not just a ride) toward God. God waits for all of us at the top.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
On the Pastor of Hermas. Much of this is from Barry Bickmore. Some of it (Ignatius and Polycarp) is pretty speculative (oh and I do not think Barry spoke of Ignatius and Polycarp). Anyway, that the Pastor of Hermas is talking about an apostasy of the church I think it fairly clear.
The Pastor of Hermas was written in the late first or early second century. It was perhaps the most quoted (about to be apocryphal) scripture during the 2nd-3rd Century.
In the 3rd vision of Hermas, a lady (the Church) describes the building of a Tower, which is her (the) Church. Square rocks that fit neatly together are Apostles and Bishops, round rocks are wealthy people who must loose some wealth to be square and agreeable for the building…
8[16]:9 Then I asked her concerning the seasons, whether the consummation is even now. But she cried aloud, saying, "Foolish man, seest thou not that the tower is still a-building? Whensoever therefore the tower shall be finished building, the end cometh; but it shall be built up quickly….
So some time before the early 2nd century the church was being build up quickly, but the tower would be finished soon. What would happen when it was finished?
7[15]:5 Still importunate, I asked her further, whether for all these stones that were rejected and would not fit into the building of the tower that was repentance, and they had a place in this tower. “They can repent,” she said, "but they cannot be fitted into this tower.
7[15]:6 Yet they shall be fitted into another place much more humble…
The tower is almost finished. A more humble place is available for those who do not fit into the Church now. Some stones (people) repented and made it into the original tower, but others would only be in the lesser tower.
4[12]:3 I enquired of her, saying, “Lady, I could wish to know concerning the end of the stones, and their power, of what kind it is.” She answered and said unto me, "It is not that thou of all men art especially worthy that it should be revealed to thee; for there are others before thee, and better than thou art, unto whom these visions ought to have been revealed. But that the name of God may be glorified, it hath been revealed to thee, all shall be revealed, for the sake of the doubtful-minded, who question in their hearts whether these things are so or not. Tell them that all these things are true, and that there is nothing beside the truth, but that all are steadfast, and valid, and established on a firm foundation.
cont…
The Pastor of Hermas was written in the late first or early second century. It was perhaps the most quoted (about to be apocryphal) scripture during the 2nd-3rd Century.
In the 3rd vision of Hermas, a lady (the Church) describes the building of a Tower, which is her (the) Church. Square rocks that fit neatly together are Apostles and Bishops, round rocks are wealthy people who must loose some wealth to be square and agreeable for the building…
8[16]:9 Then I asked her concerning the seasons, whether the consummation is even now. But she cried aloud, saying, "Foolish man, seest thou not that the tower is still a-building? Whensoever therefore the tower shall be finished building, the end cometh; but it shall be built up quickly….
So some time before the early 2nd century the church was being build up quickly, but the tower would be finished soon. What would happen when it was finished?
7[15]:5 Still importunate, I asked her further, whether for all these stones that were rejected and would not fit into the building of the tower that was repentance, and they had a place in this tower. “They can repent,” she said, "but they cannot be fitted into this tower.
7[15]:6 Yet they shall be fitted into another place much more humble…
The tower is almost finished. A more humble place is available for those who do not fit into the Church now. Some stones (people) repented and made it into the original tower, but others would only be in the lesser tower.
4[12]:3 I enquired of her, saying, “Lady, I could wish to know concerning the end of the stones, and their power, of what kind it is.” She answered and said unto me, "It is not that thou of all men art especially worthy that it should be revealed to thee; for there are others before thee, and better than thou art, unto whom these visions ought to have been revealed. But that the name of God may be glorified, it hath been revealed to thee, all shall be revealed, for the sake of the doubtful-minded, who question in their hearts whether these things are so or not. Tell them that all these things are true, and that there is nothing beside the truth, but that all are steadfast, and valid, and established on a firm foundation.
cont…
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Polycarp and Ignatius wanted to be martyrs. Did the Apostles know the truths above and teach them to these early saints? Does this revelation explain the desire for martyrdom that seemed to exist? Ignatius for sure and probably Polycarp have been criticized for their desire to be martyred. If the knowledge of Hermas was somehow available to them (either through Hermas which is possible if Hermas is assigned the earliest dates possible) or through the apostles or God, might this explain their over zealous desire for martyrdom.
The Encyclical Epistle of the Church at Smyrnam Concerning the Martyrdom of the Holy Polycarp – Chapter XIV – The Prayer of Polycarp:
I give Thee thanks that Thou hast counted me, worthy of this day and this hour, that I should have a part in the number of Thy martyrs, in the cup of thy Christ, to the resurrection of eternal life, both of soul and body, through the incorruption [imparted] by the Holy Ghost.
If the Apostles taught that the Church was soon to be built up and then a lesser organization was to exist then Polycarp might reason that his martyrdom would ensure he died a believer in the greater Church, rather than a member of the more humble organization.
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans – Chapter VIII – Be Ye Favourable to Me:
I no longer wish to live after the manner of men, and my desire shall be fulfilled if you consent. Be ye willing, then, that ye also may have your desires fulfilled. I entreat you in this brief letter; do ye give credit to me. Jesus Chirst will reveal these things to you, [so that ye shall know] that I speak truly.
Most of this Epistle is devoted to Ignatius talking about how he wants to be killed in Rome. His desires seem to be no different than Polycarp’s (or rather Polycarp was similar to Ignatius since Ignatius died first). But why does Ignatius want to die?
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans – Chapter VII – Reason of Desiring to Die:
The prince of this world would fain carry me away, and corrupt my disposition towards God.
Is Ignatius who fears the devil will corrupt him really more susceptible to this than anyone in the church? Or is the tower almost built and the entire church about to be part of a lesser, more humble organization due to the devil’s influence?
The expressed desires and reasons for those desires fit nicely into the framework revealed by the 3rd Vision. The Apostles set the stage for the buildup of the church. Those who directly communed with the Apostles seem to have certainly held the line, but they were taught that it would not be long after the “lights went out” or the Apostles died that the Church would become a lesser organization. An organization with no central authority and ultimately without the voices of the Apostles ringing in the ears of the Bishops. Ignatius and Polycarp knew this was the destiny of the church and they knew that the lesser organization was on the way.
As stated above the lesser organization was to preserve the Bible, the witness of Christ, and the basics of Christianity. Those in this organization where not abandoned by the Spirit or Christ, but until the Restoration the church was less than the church of Apostles, 70’s, Elders, …
Charity, TOm
The Encyclical Epistle of the Church at Smyrnam Concerning the Martyrdom of the Holy Polycarp – Chapter XIV – The Prayer of Polycarp:
I give Thee thanks that Thou hast counted me, worthy of this day and this hour, that I should have a part in the number of Thy martyrs, in the cup of thy Christ, to the resurrection of eternal life, both of soul and body, through the incorruption [imparted] by the Holy Ghost.
If the Apostles taught that the Church was soon to be built up and then a lesser organization was to exist then Polycarp might reason that his martyrdom would ensure he died a believer in the greater Church, rather than a member of the more humble organization.
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans – Chapter VIII – Be Ye Favourable to Me:
I no longer wish to live after the manner of men, and my desire shall be fulfilled if you consent. Be ye willing, then, that ye also may have your desires fulfilled. I entreat you in this brief letter; do ye give credit to me. Jesus Chirst will reveal these things to you, [so that ye shall know] that I speak truly.
Most of this Epistle is devoted to Ignatius talking about how he wants to be killed in Rome. His desires seem to be no different than Polycarp’s (or rather Polycarp was similar to Ignatius since Ignatius died first). But why does Ignatius want to die?
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans – Chapter VII – Reason of Desiring to Die:
The prince of this world would fain carry me away, and corrupt my disposition towards God.
Is Ignatius who fears the devil will corrupt him really more susceptible to this than anyone in the church? Or is the tower almost built and the entire church about to be part of a lesser, more humble organization due to the devil’s influence?
The expressed desires and reasons for those desires fit nicely into the framework revealed by the 3rd Vision. The Apostles set the stage for the buildup of the church. Those who directly communed with the Apostles seem to have certainly held the line, but they were taught that it would not be long after the “lights went out” or the Apostles died that the Church would become a lesser organization. An organization with no central authority and ultimately without the voices of the Apostles ringing in the ears of the Bishops. Ignatius and Polycarp knew this was the destiny of the church and they knew that the lesser organization was on the way.
As stated above the lesser organization was to preserve the Bible, the witness of Christ, and the basics of Christianity. Those in this organization where not abandoned by the Spirit or Christ, but until the Restoration the church was less than the church of Apostles, 70’s, Elders, …
Charity, TOm
D
dennisknapp
Guest
This seems to be some elaborate conjecture, TOm. The historical record does not support your hypothesis. Nice try, though.
Peace
T
TOmNossor
Guest
As I clearly stated, I offered a speculative reason for Ignatius and Polycarp seeking death, and Ignatius specifically saying he feared for his salvation if his death was not speedy.
That Hermas spoke clearly of the end of the church and a lesser organization existing afterwards is quite strong and historical.
Charity, TOm
A
arieh0310
Guest
These seem pretty clear:
God, who dwells in the heavens, and made out of nothing the things that exist, and multiplied and increased them on account of His holy Church, is angry with you for having sinned against me."
Hermas,Shepard,1:1:1(A.D. 80),in ANF,II:9
“First Of all, believe that there is one God who created and finished all things, and** made all things out of nothing**.”
Hermas,Shepard,2:1:1(A.D. 80),in ANF,II:20
“Let us turn now, O King, to the elements in themselves, that we may make clear in regard to them, that they are not gods, but a created thing, liable to ruin and change, which is of the same nature as man; whereas God is imperishable and unvarying, and invisible, while yet He sees, and overrules, and transforms all things.”
Aristides,Apology,4(A.D. 140),in ANF,X:266
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Hermas deals with a lapse in Christian peity, which is dealt with by a chance at a “second baptism” or forgiveness of sins. He states this second chance is from God and nowhere says the Church would totally fall into apostacy.
Peace
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I am away from my books this week, but Gerard May deals with the Pastor of Hermas with respect to creation ex nihilo. I think he touches upon Aristides, but I could be wrong.
The language of the day commonly spoke of creation out of non-being while explaining that everything was created from eternal matter. As Blake Ostler outlines in his systematic theology (Exploring Mormon Thought, The Attributes of God), LDS belief aligns well with the concept of eternal matter in a state of non-being uniting with the concurring energy of God to become being.
Anyway, as I suggested Gerard May (who claims this development is a good thing) has dealt extensively with the pre-Irenaeus witnesses. Copan and Craig in the New Mormon Challenge very inadequately IMO dealt with Gerard May, and this is the best treatment I have yet to encounter (my Catholic friend, who is big on creation ex nihilo, told me that I do not need to get their new book, because they still do not deal extensively with May).
Your early date of Hermas is something that I quite like. 80AD. Some people would place him after Justin Martyr (there is much controversy). As I mentioned Hermas speaks well of the apostasy. He has other controversial thoughts too.
Charity, TOm
- Status