Fullness of truth before Abraham

[mek42]

Before Abraham’s covenant, which religion had the fullness of truth?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Before Abraham’s covenant, which religion had the fullness of truth?

None of them. Even Abraham’s Covenant lacked the fullness of Truth because it had not been brought to completion in Christ Jesus yet. The Jews had God’s favor, and were given the Truths which would guide them towards God.

 

[PJM]

Before Abraham’s covenant, which religion had the fullness of truth?

Speaking for MYSELF HERE

As God had yet to choose HIS Chosen people; the religion would have been an issue of God-guided personal choice.

It would have depended largely on Charity, and what God made made POSSIBLE for each soul to know.

The foundations of "good: verse “evil” would have been written on their hearts.

 

[spedteacherita]

Before Abraham’s covenant, which religion had the fullness of truth?

God told Adam and Eve that he was going to send Someone to crush the head of the serpent - foretelling Christ’s coming. Those faithful to God in the OT had the Cross to look forward to with that Promise.

Blessings!

Rita

 

[TOmNossor]

mek42;13668579:

Before Abraham’s covenant, which religion had the fullness of truth?

None of them. Even Abraham’s Covenant lacked the fullness of Truth because it had not been brought to completion in Christ Jesus yet. The Jews had God’s favor, and were given the Truths which would guide them towards God.

I disagree with “none of them.”
I might equivocate upon “fullness of truth” so perhaps I could start with that. I doubt Abraham or Noah knew if the Vicar of Christ would (or would not) also be the Bishop of Rome (an important and disputed truth claim today). But if by “fullness of truth” you mean possessing the knowledge God considered essential for those living in that day, then I think such fullness has regularly existed and often been shared by those who speak for God (because God choose them to “speak for God.”).

Here is my thought.
God did not CHANGE truth when He revealed truth to Abraham. Noah, Enoch, and Adam knew and taught “Christian” truths. I find it unlikely they knew ALL the same things, but I suspect that there was much more to their knowledge than many suppose. I even lean towards a view that they had some knowledge of Christ as the “suffering servant” AND “conquering king.”

Margaret Barker, a Methodist preacher and Old Testament scholar focuses on a particular timeframe (before the Josiah’s reform) where she finds a great deal of Christian elements. While this timeframe does not align with your specific question, it has shown for many that things previously viewed as solely Christian, existed in 1st Temple Cult Judaism. Were the literary resources available, I suspect we could find pre-1st Temple Cult knowledge that would similarly shock our “traditional” view of religious history.

I hold to many “dispensationalist” concepts.
Does it really make sense that from the time human’s walked the earth until Abraham there wasn’t God revealed truth? A “church” of God? Hmm… that reminds me of a question folks ask me when I talk about “the Great Apostasy.”
Charity, TOm

 

[Tarquin]

mek42, what do you mean by “fulness of truth”??

Does it really make sense that from the time human’s walked the earth until Abraham there wasn’t God revealed truth? A “church” of God?

How does it or does it not “make sense”? It *could *be either way, but why should it be one particular way?

 

[TOmNossor]

How does it or does it not “make sense”? It *could *be either way, but why should it be one particular way?

1. If you are saying that we cannot be certain what God’s underlying motivations are for what God does, I agree. This means that “make sense” arguments that argue from what God would do based on human understanding of things are not without flaws.
2. My more full quote was:

Does it really make sense that from the time human’s walked the earth until Abraham there wasn’t God revealed truth? A “church” of God? Hmm… that reminds me of a question folks ask me when I talk about “the Great Apostasy.”

My point here is that sometimes folks claim that a LDS view of apostasy is problematic due to the absence of … during the time between the apostasy and the restoration. I typically disagree that the “…” is a major part of what LDS must believe about the apostasy, but whatever “…” is, it is likely that it was missing for some years before Abraham’s dispensation.
3. Finally, let me offer a tiny bit for consideration concerning those pre-Abrahamic men and woman. Modern Catholics believe that the soul is created ex nihilo at the moment of conception. I am merely suggesting that the salvation of the soul will be effected by the absence of teaching that non-dispensationalist claim existed before Abraham.
Now, let me offer what I believe to be a Catholic response to the point #3. While the soul is created ex nihilo at conception, salvation is predicated upon the response to the light received. Those who followed the light whatever it looked like pre-Abraham are in line for salvation (after spending time in the “limbo of the Fathers” of course).

All that being I am not saying that “none of them” is an answer that must be rejected for the question of who had the fullness before Abraham. I am just saying there are some difficulties with the answer.
I find what I am taught regarding these questions to align much better with the concept of an omnibenevolent God. That being said, the judgment that xyz aligns “better with the concept of an omnibenevolent God” is a human judgement.
Charity, TOm

 

[Tarquin]

1. If you are saying that we cannot be certain what God’s underlying motivations are for what God does, I agree. This means that “make sense” arguments that argue from what God would do based on human understanding of things are not without flaws.

I was not asking about God’s motivation, but asking why you would believe it “makes sense” that there would be God-revealed-truth not just now and then, but continuously “from the time humans walked the earth until Abraham.” I could accept either eventuality, whether there were one or more periods when no one had any idea of God-revealed-truth, or there were no such periods. Excluding a blind faith reliance on assertions by a religion’s professors, I do not understand why one would think either situation makes more sense.

My point here is that sometimes folks claim that a LDS view of apostasy is problematic due to the absence of … during the time between the apostasy and the restoration. I typically disagree that the “…” is a major part of what LDS must believe about the apostasy, but whatever “…” is, it is likely that it was missing for some years before Abraham’s dispensation.

I’m sorry. Please do not take this as a personal criticism. It has to do with observation and reason. What you are saying is strange. You believe in some kind of apostasy. What you believe about the apostasy includes various parts. I find it unlikely that all parts of one’s belief in apostasy would be of equal weight. However, you say you “typically disagree” with apparently any assertion that one part is “a major part” of “what LDS must believe” about the apostasy. You don’t even fill in the blank. Even without hearing some new view, your mind is set to reject it without intelligent consideration. That is a closed mind.

You are free to believe whatever you want. That goes without saying, I’m sure. But the LDS church believes differently from you. The loss of authority to act in God’s name is a major part of the Church’s teaching on apostasy. Innovations in the structure of the Church, distortions of doctrines, as well as changes in Priesthood ordinances “between the apostasy and the restoration” are major parts. “Many churches were established during the Great Apostasy,” teaches the Mormon Church, but that is not a major part of the teaching. It is a minor part – whether many churches, a few churches, or no churches were established would not matter as far as the apostasy and Restoration are concerned. Another part which certainly is not minor, is that “unlike the Church in times past, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will not be overcome by general apostasy.” That’s a major part. You reject their major-ness, all!

Modern Catholics believe that the soul is created ex nihilo at the moment of conception.

I was unable to find a source for this. Would you please give a reference in the Catechism or wherever you found it. Thank you.

 

[Tarquin]

I am merely suggesting that the salvation of the soul will be effected by the absence of teaching that non-dispensationalist claim existed before Abraham.

Thank you. Now I understand why you believe that remark was pertinent in a rivalry between Catholicism and Mormonism. I suspect you are missing some points of Catholic doctrine and perspective. Perhaps the proclamation by the II Vatican Council is valid. Lumen Gentium 16 the following: * “Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.”* Ultimately, God can save whom He will, including unbaptized. Let’s limit neither his mercy nor his power. Further, from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit; it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

And from the CCC:

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: (161, 1257)
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.
848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.” (1260)

 

[Tarquin]

While the soul is created ex nihilo at conception, salvation is predicated upon the response to the light received. Those who followed the light whatever it looked like pre-Abraham are in line for salvation (after spending time in the “limbo of the Fathers” of course).

“the light”? That is not clear. I have an idea of what is meant by “God-revealed truth”, but the light, as presented by John Paul II, is something different. It is possible to enjoy that light without having access to God-revealed-truth, as it is also possible to have access to God-revealed-truth without having access to that light. They are not the same thing.

I find what I am taught regarding these questions to align much better with the concept of an omnibenevolent God.

Naturally. Most people find that what they are taught in their religion aligns better with their concept of what God is like. It is a rare mind that can look at its own religion with an objective lens.

That being said, the judgment that xyz aligns “better with the concept of an omnibenevolent God” is a human judgement

I do not know what you mean by “omnibenevolent”. So I do not know in what way you believe your religion has a more omnibenevolent concept of God.

Brigham Young taught, officially, “The first death is the separation of the spirit from the body; the second death is, as I have stated, the dissolution of the organized particles which compose the spirit, and their return to their native element. The wicked spirit will have to endure the wrath of the Almighty, until it has paid the uttermost farthing, where the ‘worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.’”

Brigham Young and his successors taught that the spirit is decomposed into parts, returned to raw “intelligence,” and must once again begin the long evolutionary path from “intelligence” to spirit to body to – either Godhood or another decomposition. Does the ego perish and a new ego appears in the new composition of “intelligence,” spirit, and body? There is no “omnibenevolence” in such a system.

 

[Arandur]

Before Abraham’s covenant, which religion had the fullness of truth?

I’ve thought about this or something similar before. Replacing “fullness of truth” with “true faith,” I think we can speculate. The replacement is necessary because there was no “fullness” before Christ’s Incarnation. But I do believe it likely there was a “true faith” kept in a line from Adam to today.

Here’s how that goes: Adam to Noah, faith was kept (Noah saved). Then from Noah to through his son Shem (progenitor of the Semites). There is very interesting traditional belief among ancient Jews that Melchizedek, the true “Priest-King” of Salem that Abraham pays homage to, is Shem.

Note that the story of Melchizedek at least implies that there were true priests, true lines of authority, or at least that one, for Abraham to recognize. God was doing something different with Abraham, but there still existed a line of authority at least in Melchizedek.

Ancient tradition may call Melchizedek (who has no beginning or end, it observes, and the Book of Hebrews calls Christ the fulfillment of that type, being Alpha and Omega) Shem, personally, or perhaps just the authoritative priests from the line of Shem.

Here’s another thought. Zoroaster was a more ancient prophet than Abraham, and IIRC, a major religion of the land from which Abraham came (Ur of the Chaldees) was Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism has remarkable similarities to Judaic beliefs, to the extent that some Zoroastrians claim that Judaic belief came from them, and some scholars either agree, or belief that the Jews at least were influenced by their theology and at least angelic/mystical beliefs (perhaps mostly during the Babylonian Exile).

It is my personal speculation that Zoroaster was a prophet of God and his faith was the truest, though still imperfect, manifestation of faith in the One True God upon the earth leading up to Abraham’s time.

There was then an official “passing of the torch” and recognition of the authority and completion of all prophecy in Christ with the visitation of the Magi to the Infant Jesus to do him homage and present him with gifts–gifts that can be seen as a symbolic (almost sacramental) act of submission of any authority they may have had in the roles of priest, prophet, and king to Jesus, the Messiah.

So there may be two lines of authority which maintained an acceptable (for the time) practice of faith in the One True God: that through the line of Shem to Melchizedek, and that through Zoroaster. Melchizedek ratified Abraham’s authority (and passed it on through him); any Zoroastrian claim was passed on and concluded by the Magi’s visitation to Christ.

 

[spedteacherita]

"TOmNossor:

Modern Catholics believe that the soul is created ex nihilo at the moment of conception.

I was unable to find a source for this. Would you please give a reference in the Catechism or wherever you found it. Thank you.

Hi, Tarquin,

This is an article I found that was written by Tim Staples about the soul being created at the moment of conception:

catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/a-person-from-the-moment-of-conception

Sure wish I knew how to do those one word links…someday…

God bless,

Rita