Do Any Writings of the Early Church Fathers Support the Theory of a "Great Apostasy"

[arieh0310]

Originally Posted by TOmNossor
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

Scripture also seems to be clear about ex nihilo:

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

2 Maccabees 7:28 “Son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing”

Romans 11:36. For of him, and by him, and in him, are all things: to him be glory for ever. Amen.

Isaiah 44:24. Thus saith the Lord thy redeemer, and thy maker, from the womb: I am the Lord, that make all things, that alone stretch out the heavens, that established the earth, and there is none with me.

 

[arieh0310]

TOmNossor:

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.

That date came from a personal website where I copied the text. I know that there is quite a bit of controversy about the date (and authorship) of Hermas and I do not make any assertions about the 80 AD date.

 

[TOmNossor]

dennisknapp:

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

So a “second baptism” results in being part of an organization that is less than that organization that first existed. Those cast out who could not be part of the first tower (church) would receive a “second baptism” and be part of “a more humble” tower?

It has been a long time since I last read Hermas, but what you say fits well with another aspect of the apostasy as postulated by James Barker.

The disagreement between St. Cyprian (united with two local councils and many bishops) and Pope St. Stephen did introduce another form of baptism. This baptism without authority would seem to introduce someone into the lesser church.

If it is easy for you can you elaborate why you see Hermas talking about a “second baptism.”

I see no way for this “second baptism” to support your arguments against the “more humble” church being less than the church of Christ and the apostles, but it might fit well into my apostasy theories.

I am not sure you have time to deal with what I have written, so perhaps I am being hard on you. I will let you do what you will do, and see when I can get back to this if you like. I just happen to have had some time yesterday morning and today.

Remember, I do not expect to convince you to be a LDS, my goal is much more humble. The CoJCoLDS is not some crazy organization that does not find support through reason and logic. There are many thinking and conversant LDS who have engaged the evidence and found that it supports the restoration.

Charity, TOm

 

[dennisknapp]

TOmNossor:

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

Question: who made this eternal matter? Did it exist before God? If it has always existed with God, is it equal with God?

Peace

 

[TOmNossor]

arieh0310:

Scripture also seems to be clear about ex nihilo:

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

2 Maccabees 7:28 “Son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing”

Romans 11:36. For of him, and by him, and in him, are all things: to him be glory for ever. Amen.

Isaiah 44:24. Thus saith the Lord thy redeemer, and thy maker, from the womb: I am the Lord, that make all things, that alone stretch out the heavens, that established the earth, and there is none with me.

All but the 2 Maccabees scripture align perfectly with creation ex materia. Many Biblical scholars including even some counter-LDS protestant scholars are acknowledging that the Bible does not authoritatively speak one way or the other about creation ex nihilo. In fact most Biblical scholars are acknowledging that Genesis does speak of creation from pre-existing matter.

Since I have this on my computer already here is what May says about 2 Macc 7:28.

Gerard May was quite clear about these passages.
Creatio ex Nihilo:

The best known, constantly brought forward as the earliest evidence of the conceptual formulation of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, is 2 Maccabees 7:28. The need for caution in evaluating this is apparent from the context in which there is talk of creation ‘out of nothing’. There is here no theoretical disquisition on the nature of the creation process, but a paraenetic reference to God’s creative power: the mother of seven martyrs calls her youngest son to steadfastness by holding before his eyes that God, who has shown his might by creating the world and mankind ‘out of non-being’, will ‘in time of mercy’ awaken the righteous from death. A position on the problem of matter is clearly not to be expected in this context. The text implies no more than the conception that the world came into existence through the sovereign creative act of God, and that it previously was not there.

In addition to this another German scholar translates the passage:
Schmuttermayr:
“not out of things being, i.e. already existent individual things”

May points out that those who embraced creation from eternal matter regularly spoke of creation “out of non-being.”

Charity, TOm

 

[Chris-WA]

TOmNossor:

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.

So let me get this straight. One LDS historical argument against creation ex nihilo is that the pre-Irenaus ECF’s actually believed in creation from eternal matter, and if a pre-Irenaeus writer happened to write “creation from nothing,” what he really meant was “creation from eternal matter?” In other words, according to this argument, eternal matter is “nothing,” and isn’t “something” until God forms it into something? Now I’m really confused.

 

[arieh0310]

Chris-WA:

So let me get this straight. One LDS historical argument against creation ex nihilo is that the pre-Irenaus ECF’s actually believed in creation from eternal matter, and if a pre-Irenaeus writer happened to write “creation from nothing,” what he really meant was “creation from eternal matter?” In other words, according to this argument, eternal matter is “nothing,” and isn’t “something” until God forms it into something? Now I’m really confused.

I had the same confusion. LDS arguments usually run that way, though. Whenever they are presented with contrary evidence (whether Scriptural or historical) we descend into semantic gymnastics.

I don’t have the time to respond to everything in TOm’s TOmes, but I would argue that John 1:3 is quite contrary to ex materia.

Also, the more I read about LDS theology the smaller their gods become. Jesus wasn’t eternally God, He became a god. God did create the universe ex nihilo, He simple worked with matter He found laying around.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hi TOm; A thoughtful post as I’ve come to expect from you. I’m pressed for time tonight, but I want to get started on my response.

TOmNossor:

Thank you for your comments.

You are quite welcome.

TOmNossor:

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.

I know this is your position, but keep searching.
TOmNosser:

Did the “co-equal” structure emerging from Nicea “preserve the type” or “have early anticipation” of the “subordinationism was pre-Nicea orthodoxy?”

I’m not sure what you’re asking here. Is it merely rhetorical or is there some substance to this question? I can only say that the formation of the Nicene Creed, with its emphasis on the divinity of Christ, was a response to heretical movements within the Church. The Church was out of necessity clarifying previously revealed truth concerning the nature of God in response to these outside challenges. Again, this all boils down to authority. If it is your position that Arius (or some other creator of a subordination theology) had divine authority to teach this as truth, then where is your support. Arius the Alexandrine Presbyter had no such authority to declare truth above his fellow presbyters, even assuming that your position is correct. Nor does he declare that he is teaching the earliest truths of Christianity that are now being cast aside in apostasy. His ideas were new developments, that caused the development of the Nicene Creed. Your position takes a historical reaction to heretical development and presupposes that the heretical development preceded the orthodoxy that is proclaimed at Nicea. Here’s a link to New Advent’s historical look at Arius - he does not appear to have been proclaiming apostolic truths that are being rejected by the Church everywhere else. He was no champion of mormon orthodoxy, but an innovator who ultimately lost his challenge.

Arius - New Advent

TOmNossor:

Did the “creation ex nihilo” belief DEPART from the creation ex materia of Justin Martyr and seemingly of Clement of Rome?

I disagree with the argument you and Bickmore raise concerning the “original” rejection of “ex nihilo.” I think there is sufficient scriptural and traditional support for the idea that God created from nothing, that nothing pre-existed God’s creation. Good discussion of the doctrine and its roots in ancient jewish tradition - even Genesis 1, in Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pp.79-80. In addition to the lack of support for the argument that ex nihilo was evidence of an apostasy, where’s the historical record of early Christians defending against the “heresy” of ex nihilo. There is no such record of any “apostasy” into ex nihilo, only theological musings regarding the nature of God’s creation which were never fully and ultimately resolved until Vatican I - in response to modernism.
TOmNosser:

Was Vatican I’s definition of Papal Infallibility an appropriate way of developing?

TOmNosser:

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?”

Yes. “Extra Ecclesiam” was a development that was entirely consistent with the prior teachings of Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Union Council of Florence, Pope Innocent III; Boniface VII, Clement VI, Benedict XIV, Piux IX, and Leo XIII. Ultimately - Pius XII responded to modern indifferentism in declaring the necessity of membership in the Catholic Church. The concept was again clarified in Vatican II - to make clear that membership in the Church can be through an imperfect joining. Yes TOm, it is consistent.

(continued on next post…)

 

[Robert_in_SD]

TOmNosser:

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. But you cannot prove any of the above examples to be a “false” development. Each is consistent with the Catholic understanding of the teaching authority that was given to the Church by Christ.
TOmNosser:

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.

You haven’t shown any here. Perhaps this is a topic for another thread, so as not to distract from the topic of this thread - whether the ECFs can support a great apostasy theory.
TOmNosser:

Such radical development in the admitted absence of supernatural public revelation, calls into question the foundation of the Catholic Church.

No. It does not. The Catholic Church has never seen it necessary to add to the deposit of faith left by Christ and His Apostles. It only clarifies and develops the full deposit of faith that has existed from that time - with the teaching charism that it believes Christ left to it. I also see no need for further public revelation - Christ said it all - what more need be spoken.

Peace,

 

[catholic-rcia]

As Catholics we can truly say that all things have been fulfilled in Christ, the old has made

way for the new, (Heb1:1-2), Jesus has arrived, all things are fulfilled in Him Our Creator, the Eternal Son who saves. (Gal 4:4). The reason this does not make sense, or is accepted by the LDS is because they do not accept the Christian Jesus. He is just another exalted man in their eyes. Joseph Smith being another. The Catholic Church is of Christ, the LDS church is of Joseph Smith. Without Jesus you have no Catholic Church, without Joseph Smith you have no Mormon Church.

Wisdom from the Holy Spirit tells me that the Mormon Church is built on the fall of the Catholic Church, what Christ established. Wisdom from the Holy Spirit also tells me that the Catholic Church was built because of the fall of mankind in order for each member who confesses that Jesus is Lord can be healed by Him. I accept Christ as the fulfillment of all things, and this has given me Hope. It has been my hope since to share this good news with others.

God Bless

Something to ponder

Christmas
Christ - Mass

Holidays
Holy - Days

 

[RHooker]

I find it surprising that the argument was made that Catholic Church Tradition has changed over the centuries, when the LDS Tradition was radically changed in just a few years. Here is an example concerning polygamy.

Jacob 2:24 (Book of Mormon) says: “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.”

Contrast this with D&C 132 (July 12, 1843): “Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines-”

Did God change his mind by seeing David and Solomon’s polygamy as an abomination in 1830, but then justified in 1843?