The ECFs must be crazy

[TOmNossor]

BJRumph:

Why does it have to? IOW, why does it have to show that all are not subordinationalists? It has already been established that some were, so you are rejecting an alternate veiw because it canot be proven (as its definitions require it to be so), rather than question the basic assumption that gives rise to the question. Seems like a false dilemma to me.

I am kind of confused as to which side you are arguing for. Two scholars (RPC Hanson being perhaps the most noted modern patristic scholar in the world) asserted that subordination was pre-Nicene orthodoxy and that ALL subordinated (but Athanasius). Arieh0310 said essentially, “not all see this link.” I responded by acknowledging the statement of Irenaeus concerning “same nature” (which seems to be what Arieh0310 meant). One can be subordinate and still “of the same nature.” In fact that is exactly the LDS view that God the Father and God the Son are ontologically the same type of being, but Christ is subordinate to the Father.

BJRumph:

The RCC aknowledges that there were many streams of thought on just about every topic concerning the Church; and further, that it was this fact that required the definitions of orthodoxy that you necessarily reject.

This is all well and good, but my point in posting is to show that by Arieh0310’s definition that ECF are crazy. They advocate conflicting things like LDS do (in fact they advocate many of the same conflicting things LDS advocate).

BJRumph:

For a mormon example of the point I am trying to make to you;

Oliver Cowdery, a mormon ECF, apparently rejected Smith’s teachings on polygamy, as it was one of his reasons for leaving the church at a point. But, your church adopted Smith’s polygamy as being “orthodox”. Does this make Cowdery’s rejection of polygamy “evidence”, “proof”, or “support” for the falsity of Smith’s polygamy? Or rather, does it provide evidence that Crowdery was, while occasionally respected, wrong in the matter?

First, the purpose of this thread was to explore the craziness of the ECF per Arieh0310’s definition.

Second, let’s remember that the CoJCoLDS has not declared (in some way not agreed upon by pre-Newman, post-Newman, and ultra-trad Catholics) that our church cannot deviate from tradition. We have continued supernatural public revelation open to us.

And lastly, your example is radically different than the ones we are pointing to with respect to the ECF. Cowdrey was in clear opposition to the prophet. He was excommunicated, repented, and returned to full fellowship with the church. He had an orthopraxic problem with the church and was excommunicated, but he again returned to the fold. The ECF we speak of are ONLY the orthodox ones. There are no statements that they made that were considered a problem AT THE TIME they made them.

Charity, TOm

 

[BJRumph]

Heh.

MFool; if you think that my example of OC “proves” your point, then you have fully missed mine. I’ll prolly have to expound tomorrow as I have ignored my home enough for tonight.

 

[mormon_fool]

arieh0310:

From the article: “Amid these speculations of apologists and Alexandrian theologians, elaborated not without danger or without error, the Church maintained her strict dogmatic teaching concerning the Word of God. This is particularly recognizable in the works of those Fathers more devoted to tradition than to philosophy, and especially in St. Irenaeus”

Irenaues was pre-Nicean

Your quote doesn’t say all you think it does. Subordinationalism (or not) must not be part of “the strict dogmatic teaching concerning the Word of God” if apologists and Alexandrians were allowed to speculate in favor of it. Still not one pre-Nicean is shown to be against subordinationalism. Since St. Irenaeus is the best according to later orthodoxy and it can be easily seen Irenaeus supports a form of subordinationalism . . .

This, therefore, having been clearly demonstrated here (and it shall yet be so still more clearly), that neither the prophets, nor the Apostles, nor the Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme: the prophets and the Apostles confessing the Father and the Son; but naming no other as God, and confessing no other as Lord: and the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all;–it is incumbent on us to follow, if we are their disciples indeed, their testimonies to this effect.
Irenaeus, 3:9:1Against Heresies, in ANF 1:421.
as cited in Barry Bickmore Restoring the Ancient Church

later,
fool

 

[TOmNossor]

arieh0310:

Look carefully at your quote from Irenaeus, notice how he uses the singular “He” when he says “He refers to the Father and the Son”. This is a clear example of Trinitarian thought.

I do not think that is correct.

Here is the Irenaeus quote again:

Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 3.6.1 “God stood in the in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods.” He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church. (ANF 1.419).

First Irenaeus quotes the Psalmist. Psalms 82:1. Then he says that the psalmist refers to “God the Father and God the Son and those who receive the adoption.”

For your interpretation to be correct “He” would need to be in quotes such that Irenaeus was speaking of the word “He” spoken by the psalmist. This is not what Irenaeus meant. And even if “He” was in quotes it would mean that the singular “He” referred to “God the Father and God the Son and those who received the adoption,” which is great LDS social Trinity extended to include all the deified, but rather poor Augustinian Trinity.

Can you now still disagree with this?

It seems quite clear to me.

arieh0310:

Also, in Adv. Her. 4.38.4 he explains: “. He declares, “I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all sons of the Highest.” But since we could not sustain the power of divinity, He adds, “But ye shall die like men,” setting forth both truths – the kindness of His free gift, and our weakness”. Again “gods” is a much more deflated term than you give it.

And, Jesus seems to give a deflated definition to “gods” as well:

“If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?” John 10:35-36. He is clearly stating “If God called men gods simply because the word of God came to them, how much more the One He set apart and sent into the world?”

Psalms 82:6 outside of the Irenaeus’ quote can be said to refer to corrupt judges sure, but in 3.6.1 Irenaeus surely links God the Father, God the Son, and those who receive the adoption to the term “gods” in Psalms 82:1.

I disagree that in any way Jesus deflates the term gods.

But, deified humans are subordinate to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. This is not a problem. It is much more problematic within Catholic theology for God the Father to be included in the term gods which also includes “those who receive the adoption.”

AND the purpose of my posting was to show that the ECF are in fact crazy by the standards you erected. They say “men can become gods.” They say Jesus is the second God. And they also say there is one God. That is by my understanding the type of contradictions you declared qualify one as crazy.

I am quite convinced that the evidence presented on this thread is much stronger for the CoJCoLDS than for the Catholic Church, but beyond this, the ECF are crazy.

Charity, TOm

 

[mormon_fool]

BJRumph:

Heh.

MFool; if you think that my example of OC “proves” your point, then you have fully missed mine. I’ll prolly have to expound tomorrow as I have ignored my home enough for tonight.

I doubt that I did. I will restate your point if you really think I missed it. Your analogy as given is merely a strawman of any argument I have ever made. I gave your analogy the realism and sophistication needed to more resemble my actual arguments.

In any event, have a good night.
fool

 

[TOmNossor]

arieh0310:

From the article: “Amid these speculations of apologists and Alexandrian theologians, elaborated not without danger or without error, the Church maintained her strict dogmatic teaching concerning the Word of God. This is particularly recognizable in the works of those Fathers more devoted to tradition than to philosophy, and especially in St. Irenaeus”

Irenaues was pre-Nicean

Mormon Fool responded by quoting Irenaeus. I responded by addressing the inequality between what your link said concerning Irenaeus (eternal generation is true) and what you are saying contra RPC Hansen, Williams, and me (subordination is not universally witnessed before Nicea). Your link does not respond to the position of the scholars quoted.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

BJRumph:

While I can recognize your decision to claim ex nihilo as an “error”, I cannot accept such a position myself.

Well the Fourth Lateran council does not leave the Catholic much of an option, but it should be noted it took quite some time before this was declared dogmatically (over 1000 years)

BJRumph:

I find your claim that “no one” believed in such a creation mechanic incredulous, mostly because it is found within the Catholic cannon of scripture, most obviously in 2 Maccabees 7, specifically verse 28, though the CCC references 22 & 23 as well.

Granted, we can nitpick about the Book itself, or the conditions and nature of the speaker in this specific case, but that such a thing could come from the source that it did bespeaks that this is a belief held by some, if not (certainly) all.

Obviously this simple woman held beliefs that counter an earlier assertion that all palestinian jews were specifically anthropormorphic in their theology in addition to the current, on hand, discussion regarding the variety of thought regarding the mechanism of Creation.

Actually, I am well aware of 2 Maccabees 7:28. And I agree that we do not need to discuss if it is or is not canonical, because it is clearly pre-second century AD. The problem is that it does not actually show that anyone, author of 2 Maccabees or lady mentioned in 2 Maccabees believe in creation ex nihilo. The creation out of things that “were not” and the creation from “non-being” are solid creation ex materia terms. A number of Greek philosophers (Aristotle, Plotonius, and I think Plato) who absolutely believed in creation ex materia used these terms. They are in full accord with the concept of forming unformed matter in the Greek of the day.

Of course, you do not need to believe me. 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”

And of course Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr believed in creation ex materia.

Creation ex Nihilo was a natural enough development. Jews and Christians alike desired to emphasize the sovereign nature of God, and this was one of the ways it was done. But it was a development and while I do not go so far as to say it is unbiblical, it is not the most clear read of the Biblical (this is accepted by the majority scholars, I can even quote a Catholic if you like).

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

BJRumph:

If the doctrine was accepted “uncritically” as you present, then it seems that there was not much dicussion needed for persuading the Church that it is to be adopted, as the ECFs were quite vocal in voicing their rejection of error in all other cases. In other words, when we see evidence of heated resistance in every contested arena, it seems unlikely that if your pre-supposition is true (that ex nihilo is an erroneous and fallicious doctrine, created by a controlling minority rather than common realization and vision) that it would have been adopted as quietly, and unresisted as it was (duly noting Tertullian as the exception). Clearly, it seems to have had a larger following than you are supposing or are presenting.

Again, its development was natural enough. Who would reject placing greater power in the hands of the omnipotent God. And I guess I should say that there is little evidence of conflict, but Justin Martyr and Clement of Rome embraced creation ex materia. And Ignatius and Polycarp made no statements. Then people begin to speak in creation ex nihilo words. Gerard May goes so far as to question Tatian, but this really relies upon some things that we cannot firmly establish (in time) in my mind.

BJRumph:

As to how this intersects with the deification of man I can only say that I recognize how they are related, though not critically so.

If creation ex nihilo was not accepted the Early Church controversies would have been largely non-issues IMO. If everything is either God or not-God what is Jesus. If Jesus was fully human and he was fully God did he have one nature or two? Did he have one will or two? Without ex nihilo the first four councils become friendly discussions. Then we have the as yet unresolved deification issue. We have theodicy which neither Augustine or Aquinas quite cracked, but Protestant scholar Plantinga has done a lot to solve (although he is a Calvinist in my opinion out of necessity). Creation ex nihilo in my opinion is a huge mess.

Concerning the rest of your post, I agree with a lot of what you say.
Mormon Thought: The Attributes of God:
Yet in many ways rational exploration of the meaning of “God” is inevitable for the thoughtful believer, even though it is also strangely irrelevant, irreverant and even “irrevelant.” Rational exploration of God is strangely irrelevant to religious belief because what the believer seeks is a personal relationship with God rather than an intellectual grasp of his nature and attributes. To the believer who stands in God’s presence, the proofs of God’s existence derived from natural theology must seem quite absurdly superfluous.

I of course disagree with the lack of emphasis upon Grace you seem to assign to the CoJCoLDS.

And perhaps more important to our current discussion is the fact that we cannot compare spiritual witness. On this message board we must discuss rational theology. LDS are regularly criticized for not going where the evidence leads, but instead relying upon feelings. I do not condemn those who do such things, but for some of us evidence is important ALSO.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

In case it is not obvious, creation ex nihilo is a topic I find interesting. There is certainly deference to God to suggest that He created ex nihilo, and I see the appeal to do this.

This thread is really about the ECFs and their teachings. I hope it now seems that the ECF do have some differences of opinion and even some choices of words that sound contradictory.

I do not think the ECF are crazy, I just think that they believed that God was one, God was three, and men can become gods. These beliefs can be explained in various ways and have been.

Charity, TOm

 

[BJRumph]

Having been given the leave of (my now sleeping) family, I will retunr as promised to MFool’s point/question.

As I said, the lds veiw of the abstract principle exemplified in the OC example given is necessarily the one you need to adopt, that OC was a repected member of the church (excomm aside, as he did eventually retun in good graces), and a leader of sorts, who disagreed as to a particular doctrine (“holy cow” seems to flippant, though I’d like to keep the discusson “lite”). This is a necessary position of your church.

It is, in all but one particular, the same position that the RCC has regarding the ECF’s. Not to unduly distract, but the one point of difference between the RCC ECFs and the LDS ECFs is the issue of authority bestowed upon them by their respective eccleisiastical bodies. The RCC recognizes that even their most beloved ECFs have held veiws that are considered wrong by the same organization that loves them so much.

Consider Thomas Aquinas’ position within the Church; he taught many things, and was erudite enough in many particulars that he was made a “Doctor of the Chuch”, and is hailed today as a great Cathlic theologian. Though so widely respected, there is no hesitation within the Church to point out his errors of doctrine as well. However, he was not invested with any ecclesiastical authority to weild in his personal thoughts to make them, or rather assert them onto, the Church. His theology is accepted based on their usefulness of erudition in explaining the already present doctrine of the Church, not because he was given the authority to create said doctrine. Thus, the Church has the freedom to adopt what is useful/good of his writings, and reject what they know to be error precisely because of his lack of authoritative backing.

This is a wholly different scenario with the “Prophets, seers, and revelators” of the CoJCoLDS, who are expressly given that critically absent authority in the RCC to express and define new doctrine. This is a critical distinction between the RCC ECfs and the LDS ECFs. Regardless of how we feel about the distinction (ie which is the “better” position), the distinction is real, and must be aknowledged when dealing with the issue of the ecfs, especially when there is “cross-pollenization” going on.

Anyway, back to the present point. When the lds use the Catholic ECFs, as you, Mormon Fool, have attempted to use them, you are performing the fallicious analysis of the first action described in my OC example. To remind you what that is, here it is again:

Oliver Cowdery, a mormon ECF, apparently rejected Smith’s teachings on polygamy, as it was one of his reasons for leaving the church at a point. But, your church adopted Smith’s polygamy as being “orthodox”. Does this make Cowdery’s rejection of polygamy “evidence”, “proof”, or “support” for the falsity of Smith’s polygamy?

For example, you previously asserted that eternal marriage as a legitimate early church doctrine is evidenced by its supposed teaching from the gnostic writings. However, the Church, when speaking for itself, has proclaimed these groups to be heterodox/heretics. So, when you use such sources, to include the less radical examples of the explicitly rejected musings of “recognized” (ie Orthodox) ECFs, as evidence of a true expression of early church doctrine, you are relying on evidence that rejects itself by its own definition, and that you reject out of hand when presented to you regarding your own religion (despite that you have less ground to do so). You are, in true effect, saying that OC’s rejection of polygamy is evidence of the “true” (in this examples case, monogamous)religious teaching that was suppressed by the orthodox (polygamous) CoJCoLDS.
-----continued…

 

[BJRumph]

----…continued.

TOm, I apologize if my OC example offended, that was surely not the intent. As you should be able to see, it was an attempt to draw out the point of the inconsistancy in regards to the ECFs as they are being used here in this forum. While his reasons for apostasizing himself for a time included non-doctrinal issues, his example is used as a readily understood example of a mormon leader who disagreed with the “orthodox” mainstream line on a specific (and therefore easily identifiable) point of contemporary doctrine. As he later reconciled with the church, I do not see his apostacy as being particularly germain to the discussion at hand, so it is not a point I was trying to make.

At any rate, why do you insist that a doctrine that “developed naturally enough” is necessarily in error? Could not the case be made for Jesus’ “new commandments” being a natural development of the OT Law/Commandments (is this not *the * case that is made by Christians?). If that much of the OT is being so radically re-interpreted, why is it so foreign an idea that the matter of *ex materia * vs *ex nihilo * is a similar development, ‘evolution’ if you will, of thought/doctrine. (yes, I know about the contention currently popular regarding the “development” or “nondevelopment” of Doctrine, please apply a little salt here, and give me a ‘newbie caveat’ as this matter is wholly irrelevant in this discussion’s context. Thanks ) As mankind’s understanding of the universe God has created has moved into increasingly abstract terms, it only makes sense that the old doctrines would also be developed (or recognized if you will) in increasingly abstract terms as well. I think the NT cannon give us sufficient material to work with in consistantly applying the same abstract principles to accurately (with the Spirit’s assistance in making the more profound leaps) understand the OT material in light of our new understandings given us by God’s Incarnation.​

Again, we can, and will (not to mention have) come to points at which we necessarily have to disagree. That, IMHO, is the critical point of the type of discussion here. Until we come to these points, which only appear after discoursing our way out of the veils conceling them, there is no progress being made, and the discussion ‘fruitless’ (not to mention, usually endless). As such, I do not expect to “resolve” our differences, but only to recognize and ‘appreciate’ them. (it is also why I get so testy when the discussions turn into “we aren’t really that different” fests. We really are different, and necessarily so. We do everyone a disservice when hiding such. Just my ramblings )​

One last point to try and clarify for future discussion’s sake. In my veiw of things, it does not take an official coming to me and decaring some point of doctrine I iterate as being “heresy” to make it heresy. A teaching is either heretical or it is not; its declaration of such (or in many cases, non-declaration) does not change its intrinsic, objective, value as a heresy. Additionally, heresy is simply an incorrect teaching/doctrine; Apostasy is, as an objective fact, an unrelated (to heresy) rejection of authority (in context, of Religious authority). Further, I can’t think of a single instance of Heresy wherein its proponents did not think that their abberant beliefs are consistant with their base religious tradition. Thus, there are apostates who are simply that; though there are apostates that are also heretics (such as I, from an lds perspective). Likewise there are heretics who are not apostates, though may who choose to persist in their heresy will often apostasize from the authority calling them such. I enter these observations here in the hopes that they will be utilized in further discussions as they warrant.

Sorry so long. Had a bit to say.

Caritas numquam excidit
Inter arma caritas

B

 

[BJRumph]

Ok, to be breif, as well as return to the actual topic of the thread itself;

I agree with Arieh that the ECFs are not ‘crazy’. I have to disagree with the lds here that they in any substantial way support the lds religion, and specifically their theological worldview.

In a bad mood, I have stated the attempts to reconcile the ecfs to the lds is dishonest (particularly in the more extreem examples used, mostly in other threads). Here and now, I will suffice with “fallicious”. I have endeavored to show evidence, as principle, of the fallacy so easily seen from my own perspective. Maybe it will help, maybe not (maybe I articulated it in an understandable fasion, maybe not). Afterall, “we wrestle not against flesh…”

Oh, and MFool, I have no idea who Ariel is, so those points are lost on me (though not the snipe that followed ). BTW, to use my posts in the manner you are suggesting you can, would be further use of the fallacy examined

Anyway, God bless, and good night.

Caritas numquam excidit
Inter arma caritas

 

[arieh0310]

I go to bed at 10pm and get to work to find tomes written by TOm and MFool, that’ll teach me not to sleep! I don’t have the time to refute everything being posted, however I will throw up another Irenaeus quote that I hope will quell this storm about Irenaeus believing in a second god.

Adv. Her. 2.30.9: “He is the Former, He the Builder, He the Discoverer, He the Creator, He the Lord of all; and there is no one besides Him, or above Him, neither has He any mother, as they falsely ascribe to Him; nor is there a second God…But there is one only God, the Creator – He who is above every Principality, and Power, and Dominion, and Virtue: He is Father, He is God, He the Founder, He the Maker, He the Creator, who made those things by Himself, that is, through His Word and His Wisdom – heaven and earth, and the seas”

Adv. Her. 3.4.2: “carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus”

Adv. Her. 4.20.1: “For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit”

 

[TOmNossor]

BJRumph:

As I said, the lds veiw of the abstract principle exemplified in the OC example given is necessarily the one you need to adopt, that OC was a repected member of the church (excomm aside, as he did eventually retun in good graces), and a leader of sorts, who disagreed as to a particular doctrine …This is a necessary position of your church.

It is, in all but one particular, the same position that the RCC has regarding the ECF’s. Not to unduly distract, but the one point of difference between the RCC ECFs and the LDS ECFs is the issue of authority bestowed upon them by their respective eccleisiastical bodies. The RCC recognizes that even their most beloved ECFs have held veiws that are considered wrong …
This does seem to be a place were we will ultimately agree to disagree. I see in the CoJCoLDS from the Joseph Smith to Brigham Young to Harold B. Lee; explained in the D&C and BOM; and believed officially from the very beginning the idea that leaders may make mistakes. I see in the Catholic Church an evolution of local authorities to global authorities; a continued rejection of supernatural public revelation; a developed understanding of Papal Infallibility (which does place within the Pope the OPPORTUNITY to be without error supposedly throughout all the history of the church); and a developed understanding of the ability to develop. These things explain most or all of the developments that are seen in the Catholic Church, but while they may in fact be part of the divine will from the beginning, history shows that the earliest folks had no idea some of these things existed.
To me the case that the Early LDS were fallible and that common consent was the ultimate, but not infallible seal, are quite clear from the earliest days of the CoJCoLDS (at least in the authoritative statements of the church). That the Pope was as he is now seen AND that tradition develops as post-Newman folks believe it does were not clear in the beliefs of the Early Church. And the development of doctrine is more problematic for Catholicism than for Mormonism because of the rejection of supernatural public revelation and the emphasis upon preserving tradition.
There is a rather irreverent joke that I heard recently, the second part of it is as follows “LDS say that the prophet is fallible, but no one actually believes it.” There is clearly a disconnect between the IMO clearly developed (from the earliest days of the church) position on the fallibility of prophets AND the assumption made by those who “follow the prophet.” That this ongoing error is supported, I have concern about; but in general it is more dangerous to err on the side of seeing the prophet as infallible than on the side of disrespecting his council because he is fallible.

BJRumph:

This is a wholly different scenario with the “Prophets, seers, and revelators” of the CoJCoLDS, who are expressly given that critically absent authority in the RCC to express and define new doctrine. … Regardless of how we feel about the distinction …the distinction is real, …

The distinction is real, and I agree we needn’t discuss which is more historical or better, but what is also very real is that there is no such things as infallibility (other than with God) in the CoJCoLDS. And that the restrictions to develop/believe in accordance with tradition places bounds upon the Catholic Church that do not exist within the CoJCoLDS. That most or all of the CoJCoLDS after Joseph Smith believed there was a time before which Heavenly Father was not God is not a wonderful thing in my eyes, but it does not conflict with my belief that there was not a time before which Heavenly Father was not God and my hope that the church (when walking down orthodoxical paths which are secondary to orthopraxical paths) will emphasize the greatness and everlasting divinity of God.

If it were absolutely truth that subordination was pre-Nicene orthodoxy (which I believe it is) and post 380AD there was absolutely no subordination available in Catholic dogma (which I believe IS NOT THE CASE) then this would be a “fatal flaw.” Pre- and Post- Newman development cannot account for this CHANGE and the Catholic Church would be internally conflicted in an irresolvable way. Again, I do not claim this conflict exists absolutely. But this is the type of thing that can be used to test the Catholic Church in a way that it cannot be used to test the CoJCoLDS.
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

BJRumph:

Anyway, back to the present point. When the lds use the Catholic ECFs, as you, Mormon Fool, have attempted to use them, you are performing the fallicious analysis of the first action described in my OC example. To remind you what that is, here it is again:

The use of the ECF as I am trying to use them serve two purposes globally and one purpose in this thread specifically.

Global One: The ECF more often than not witness to LDS beliefs that are either unique or far more prevalent within the CoJCoLDS than within the developed orthodoxy. This is quite powerful since Joseph Smith did not have access to the Vatican Library as he received revelation concerning God truth. Often these ECF were the ones embraced as orthodox and/or made Saints by the Catholic Church, but occasionally (especially in sacred Temple ordinances which a faithful ECF would be unlikely to publish on anyway) LDS find traces in the groups that were declared heretics.

Global Two: Some developments in the Early Church are difficult to right with the demands of Catholic theology that tradition is preserved AND no supernatural public revelation is available. The development away form creation ex materia and the development away from pre-Nicene subordination are examples.

Specific: This thread postulated that LDS must believe that the ECF were crazy because they said things that LDS (according to former LDS) do not embrace. I have tried to show that the ECF embraced positions that need to be further explained (SEEMINGLY contradictory) just as LDS embrace those same positions. So if the ECF speak as LDS are accused of believing on some instances and as the develop orthodoxy embraces on other instances then I think per the criteria at the beginning of the thread they are “crazy.” In addition to this, I suggest that both LDS and the ECF have the ability (sometimes not put into practice) to align these SEEMINGLY contradictory positions. All this being said, the early apostasy postulates that error will slow creep into belief structures so LDS expect to see truth and error side by side in the ECF.

BJRumph:

TOm, I apologize if my OC example offended, that was surely not the intent. As you should be able to see, it was an attempt to draw out the point of the inconsistancy in regards to the ECFs as they are being used here in this forum.

I am sorry if I appeared offended, I was not. I just think the comparison falls down on many levels as explained above and in previous posts.

While developed doctrine does not follow the Maxim of St Vincent de Lerins, things that seem to meet the criteria of this Maxim are in fact rejected in favor of developed ideas. The Catholic Church is far more affected by this (on the surface) truism IMO than is the CoJCoLDS by folks (even high leaders) not following the prophet or the fallible prophet erring.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

BJRumph:

At any rate, why do you insist that a doctrine that “developed naturally enough” is necessarily in error? Could not the case be made for Jesus’ “new commandments” being a natural development of the OT Law/Commandments (is this not the case that is made by Christians?).

It is not my position that it is absolutely in error because it developed, but rather that it did develop from LDS beliefs to the developed orthodoxy. It is also my position that one must very liberally define “early anticipation” to suggest that this development was in alignment with valid development principles post Newman. It is also my position that numerous controversies and non-LDS development were born of this development (some of which have not to this day been adequately/systematically resolved). And finally it is my position that supernatural public revelation from Christ that leads to a New Testament is a wholly different example and cannot be used to show how those who must rely on Tradition can develop too.
I am sure I have gotten more bold here than I intended to, but the evidence here is so radically pro-LDS I do not know how else to state it. Certainly there are some words that appear creation ex nihilo before the second century. Certainly if the Catholic authority is sealed by God, the decision of the 4th Lateran Council was true. And if the decision of the 4th Lateran Council was true then the developments through the first four councils of the church AND the yet to be developed resolution of still open issues were and will be true IMO. In this instance (as opposed to other instances) I think the evidence points strongly in the non-Catholic direction, but if this is not absolutely a “fatal flaw” and I am not telling you that it must be (not that you should believe me anyway) then other evidence can overwhelm this lost IMO battle.

BJRumph:

Again, we can, and will (not to mention have) come to points at which we necessarily have to disagree.

I agree . The biggest point of disagreement I think you and I have is what Early LDS heretical statements and ECF heretical statements have to communicate about the charisms of our churches. Don’t get me wrong though, I do have never claimed that isolated heretical statements by ECF are not acceptable in a Catholic paradigm.

BJRumph:

…the ECFs are not ‘crazy’. I have to disagree with the lds here that they in any substantial way support the lds religion, and specifically their theological worldview.

In a bad mood, I have stated the attempts to reconcile the ecfs to the lds is dishonest (particularly in the more extreem examples used, mostly in other threads). Here and now, I will suffice with “fallicious”. …

Especially on this thread, but in general I see the LDS efforts as RADICALLY SUCCESSFUL in showing that the ECF did in fact believe SOME unique LDS things. That LDS seldom acknowledge the creation ex nihilo problem and how this affects the whole discourse I agree, but in this thread we have explored it quite thoroughly. The ECF placed themselves in a position were they had to align the truths they were taught through the Bible and Tradition with the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. As they did this they continued to speak of things in the way LDS do, but with a foundation that created a disconnect between the meanings of their words and the logical conclusions required by creation ex nihilo. They moved farther and farther from the Bible and the Tradition and the CoJCoLDS as they choose to align their words with creation ex nihilo rather than realizing that ex nihilo was the departure from Tradition that it was. But if ex nihilo is correct then all the difficulties were likely inspired solutions.

So I know I am not perfect, but I also do not lie (at least with respect to this). The ECF spoke of deification in terms that did not deny the ontological change required by the embracing of creation ex nihilo and “men may become gods.” This ontological change required in ECF deification is a product of embracing creation ex nihilo and the Biblical and historical deification positions (and their inherent conflict). Augustine started the move away and Palamas solved the problems (but only for the EOs). LDS err when they do not recognize the ECF deification requires an ontological change in a way that LDS deification does not. Non-LDS err when they suggest that anything pre-Augustine suggests the ECF did not embrace some type of ontological transformation resulting in a fullness of deification.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

arieh0310:

I go to bed at 10pm and get to work to find tomes written by TOm and MFool, that’ll teach me not to sleep! I don’t have the time to refute everything being posted, however I will throw up another Irenaeus quote that I hope will quell this storm about Irenaeus believing in a second god.

Adv. Her. 2.30.9: “He is the Former, He the Builder, He the Discoverer, He the Creator, He the Lord of all; and there is no one besides Him, or above Him, neither has He any mother, as they falsely ascribe to Him; nor is there a second God…But there is one only God, the Creator – He who is above every Principality, and Power, and Dominion, and Virtue: He is Father, He is God, He the Founder, He the Maker, He the Creator, who made those things by Himself, that is, through His Word and His Wisdom – heaven and earth, and the seas”

Adv. Her. 3.4.2: “carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus”

Adv. Her. 4.20.1: “For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit”

Irenaeus did believe in creation ex nihilo (if I remember correctly Gerard May claimed he was the first ECF to believe this, but I have been unwilling to excuse Tatian who preceded Irenaeus).

Nothing in Irenaeus demand some type of non-subordination position. In the quotes you provided the best we have is not speaking on this issue which is insufficient to overturn the many ECFs who embraced subordination.

Again you are not arguing against TOm or some other LDS here, but again RPC Hansen. And not only that, but you are arguing against RPC Hansen (an orthodox Protestant scholar if I recall, but I haven’t checked of a long time) asserting something against his BIAS but in alignment with the evidence.

It is common for LDS to neglect to recognize that the ECF post Justin Martyr believed in creation ex nihilo and that this effects the alignment of ECF deification with LDS deification. We simply see the evidence as we want to see it (and struggle to understand how it is not as it appears to us), but Hansen does not do this in this case. His witness is pretty strong.

Charity, TOm

 

[majick275]

Just a quick observation on TOms well written post. Regarding the LDS prophets, I will grant you that official LDS doctrine alows for fallibility of the individual. I would note though two apparent “doctrines” of the LDS church dealing with this. The first is the canonized promise (from D&C) that when the oracles of the lord are moved by the holy ghost then whatever they speak is the mind and will of God. This at least creates situational infallibility. The premise that common consent is the measure of when to apply this is somewhat problematic in that when this is actually applied it resembles a single party election. (everyone voted, all in favor continue on, all opposed are being re-educated) I don’t mean to imly anyhting sinister but more a lack of true choice. When large numbers of members “disagreed” with the prophet they splintered off. When individuals disagree they are promptly “counseled” so that either they accept or they are “on the high road to apsotasy”.

Second is the consistent teaching (therefore “doctrine”) that obedience to the “lords anointed” is more important than “correctness”. Numerous times LDS authorities have taken the position that if the leaders erred and the members followed them then they would be blessed for faith and obedience and the leaders would be corrected by God. (eventually) But to act contrary to the counsel of the prophet, even if “wrong” is sin. It is certainly disobedience and quite often apostasy.

I realize that I did not post references here. (for time sake) but I didn’t think the particulars would be disputed. If required I can give examples.

 

[TOmNossor]

majick275:

Just a quick observation on TOms well written post. Regarding the LDS prophets, I will grant you that official LDS doctrine alows for fallibility of the individual. I would note though two apparent “doctrines” of the LDS church dealing with this. The first is the canonized promise (from D&C) that when the oracles of the lord are moved by the holy ghost then whatever they speak is the mind and will of God. This at least creates situational infallibility.

Thanks for the kind words. I agree with some of what you have said, but I see two issues.

Most doctrinal and most important is the “when” moved upon by the Holy Ghost has not been defined with the possible exception of through the common consent acceptance. Harold B. Lee explained that new revelation will only come through the prophet, but when it does it will be approved by the highest quorums then accepted by common consent. This is almost totally analogous to the “when” a Pope speaks ex cathedra. There MAY be key words and phrases that indicate such, but they have not been infallibly defined. The JPII’s statement on the priesthood to women had half of the key words and phrases present in one of the two generally accepted infallible statements, but (then Cardinal) Ratzinger said it was not an infallible statement. Newman even suggests that it is up to the people’s common acceptance (common consent) that determine ultimately what the popes words mean to their Catholic faith.

Second, and more TOm specific, I believe that the prophet most frequently if not always speaks based upon the concepts that God communicates to him not that the prophet opens their mouth to let God’s words escape. This means that forever there will be a fallible layer of man. Does this make the prophet unreliable? I would say no, God can be more or less clear as He decides based upon the prophet and the peoples needs. Some general concepts may be taken to extremes by fallible men and other things may be neglected, but the “last dispensation idea” results in the prevention of a complete apostasy.

majick275:

The premise that common consent is the measure of when to apply this is somewhat problematic in that when this is actually applied it resembles a single party election. (everyone voted, all in favor continue on, all opposed are being re-educated) I don’t mean to imly anyhting sinister but more a lack of true choice. When large numbers of members “disagreed” with the prophet they splintered off. When individuals disagree they are promptly “counseled” so that either they accept or they are “on the high road to apsotasy”.

I can site one example were the Prophet Joseph called for the excommunication of a particular member, but the church rejected his call and there was no excommunication. But in many ways you are correct.

Fortunately, the highest quorums have long been places were ideas were filtered by the spirit before such problems occurred. Very few folks rejected the 1978 OD2. And in all instances even with less reserved high quorums the majority of the people have accepted those things offered up for common consent.

In the 1870’s in the Catholic Church there was real fear that a new dispensation was dawning and that the infallible pope would start declaring things ex cathedra and radically change the Catholic faith. This of course proved to not be the case. That is not because there is not truth known by Popes that is not dogma, but rather because making this truth dogma is not necessary nor expedient (which is what Newman felt about the dogma of papal infallibility BTW).

I suggest that the highest quorums guided by the spirit seldom place the body of the church in a position to create radical schism. Even the FLDS are a very small group and that was one of the more controversial things offered up for common consent.

So I agree there is concern of the theft of our common consent through the threat of …, but I will be true to God before any man and I suspect most LDS ultimately feel the same. Fortunately, I do not anticipate that my trails of faith will come from prophetic revelations any time soon.
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

majick275:

Second is the consistent teaching (therefore “doctrine”) that obedience to the “lords anointed” is more important than “correctness”. Numerous times LDS authorities have taken the position that if the leaders erred and the members followed them then they would be blessed for faith and obedience and the leaders would be corrected by God. (eventually) But to act contrary to the counsel of the prophet, even if “wrong” is sin. It is certainly disobedience and quite often apostasy.

I respond to this with my importance of orthopraxy vs. orthodoxy. It is important that we sustain our leaders and find room in our understanding of doctrine for what they teach. All teaching is doctrine (on a certain level), but only that formally accepted by common consent teaching is binding doctrine. Again, the Catholic Church has levels of doctrine from the well intentioned but erroneous answer to a question in RCIA, to the teachings of the ordinary magisterium, to the dogma from the extraordinary magisterium.

The closest charism to infallibility in the CoJCoLDS is the acceptance by common consent of revelation received through the prophet.

The belief that the prophet cannot lead the church into apostasy is also a pretty solid and binding idea that derives from the fact that this is the last dispensation.

Outside of these, we must sustain our current leaders, respect our past leaders, and …

But the first and great commandment is to love the Lord our God with all of our heart. I am a LDS because I am a Christian, I am not a Christian because I am a LDS.

Charity, TOm