The Great Apostasy Debate

[TOmNossor]

Ok, here goes.

Tmaque:

The 2nd LDS Article of Faith:

1. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

Sounds like a repudiation of original sin to me.

LDS do not believe in original sin. LDS beliefs are much closer to Eastern Orthodox beliefs than they are to western Christianity.

Your very clear error is in suggesting that original sin has early witness. The concept of original sin was developed by Augustine in the 5th century. LDS beliefs are closer to Early Christianity than are Catholic beliefs.

Tmaque:

The only flaw in the way I look at things is that I’m pretty straightforward. A thing is right or wrong, it is true or false. Either the Catholic church is true or it isn’t.

Either contraception is wrong or it isn’t…No exceptions

It is fairly silly to suggest that anti-contraception views have early witness. That would be impossible. In PRACTICE it seems LDS are as anti-contraception as are Catholic if not more so. In doctrine, we have little to say but that the command to multiply and replenish the earth is in full effect. In recent years we have very much softened our speak on contraception, but I believe the best read of our scriptures and the statements of our leaders is that LDS may only practice contraception during the circumstances which Catholics can practice contraception. The chief difference being that LDS can practice “non-natural” contraception in the circumstances whereas Catholic may only use LAM or rhythm or other natural methods. Catholics have developed an unusual IMO position on the prevention of fertilized eggs and how this relates to murder. LDS have not done this.

The fact that LDS typically do not view contraception as wrong (when it is done at times that LDS leaders seem to have suggested is not appropriate) is unfortunate, but it can be placed next to the plethora of Catholics who practice contraception and even do other more evil birth prevention things.

Tmaque:

Either abortion is wrong or it isn’t.

Would it surprise you to find out that in today’s Catholic Church it is acceptable to terminate some pregnancies to save the mother’s life? Would you find it as peculiar as I do when this pregnancy termination is only theologically acceptable when done in a very dangerous manner rather than done in a very safe and simple manner (when the results are the same)? Absolutes are not quite as absolute as most Catholics think.

In addition to this the Catholic position on abortion has absolutely developed. See this thread and specifically post #33. I think the old Catholic position was a lot closer to the LDS position than is the current Catholic position (I am not saying they are identical, I am just saying that abortion was once wrong in the Catholic Church for the same reason it is currently wrong in the LDS church. The abortion=murder always and forever is a new development).

Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Tmaque:

Either Christ said there is no marriage in Heaven or he didn’t

Well, actually He did not say this. He said that we are not “given in marriage in Heaven.” There are a number of mitigating factors that address why this passage does not demand that LDS Eternal Marriage contradicts the Bible. But if you review the first post, I said this was a position you were generally correct in asserting.

Tmaque:

you … really like to get into the details of the subject you’re interested in. But, sometimes, you can get a sense of a thing by just looking at it in a general way. If you examine it too closely you can get lost in the details and miss the sense of the larger truth of it entirely. Is the

LDS Church exactly like, or even quite similar to, the early Christian church? In my mind there is only one answer. No, it is not. Not even close.

Sometimes you need to back away from a thing to get perspective on it

I agree with most of this passage. We do not have evidence that early Christian orthodoxy was exactly like or even quite similar to the modern CoJCoLDS. Early Christianity was not exactly like or even quite similar to the modern Catholic Church either though. Even Early Christian Orthodoxy (after you throw out Gnostics and the words that preceded Arius and the semi-arians and …) is not exactly like or even quite similar to the modern Catholic Church.

Cardinal Newman’s book An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine argues that the modern church is the tree that grew from the seed. He argues that developments followed 7 rules. His essay is a powerful Catholic apologetic that goes a long way towards explaining why the Catholic Church looks so different than what can be seen in the historical witness. Without Newman’s essay or with the understanding of Tradition that most Catholics possess, I could suggest that Catholicism is fatally flawed. Quite simply leaning on Tradition does not in an obvious way get you to today’s Catholic Church. This is the general “perspective on it” that I get. To be Catholic (and familar with the history) one needs that complex details and ideas Newman provides IMO.

The points of contact in the early church with the restored doctrines of Joseph Smith are in my opinion extraordinary. More often than not when Joseph Smith restored a doctrine we can find early witness for it (and often from orthodox sources). This and other, seemingly unlikely to occur by chance in upstate New York, evidences speak to the restoration.

Charity, TOm

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

Well, actually He did not say this. He said that we are not “given in marriage in Heaven.”

ACTUALLY, what He says that in the resurrection people neither marry nor are given in marriage. And in Luke He makes it specific that only people of this age marry and are given in marriage.

 

[tkdnick]

NT references to an apostasy:

Matthew 24:4-12
Mark 13:21-23
Luke 21:7-8
Acts 20:29-30
2 Thessalonians 2:1-12
2 Timothy 3:1-7
2 Timothy 4:1-4
2 Peter 2:1-3
Jude 17-19

Anyone have OT references?

 

[Tmaque]

Tmaque:

Ok. For me, as an ex-Mormon it’s pretty simple. LDS folks claim that their’s is God’s true church restored to it’s original form. Anything that is restored to it’s original should be quite similar to, if not exactly like the way it was in the first place…right? Well, what uniquely Mormon beliefs and practices can be found in the early mainstream Christian Church? You can always find exceptions to the rule but how would Mormons of today like us judging them by the radical beliefs of todays LDS Fundamentalists? Here we go…

Belief in a pre-existence?-No
Belief in baptism for the dead?-only by heretical groups
Belief that God has a physical body?-No
Belief in a Word of Wisdom?-No
Belief in baptism by immersion only?-No
Belief that there is no original sin?-No
Belief that not everyone should be baptized?-No
Temples?-No
Temple ordinances?-No
Special garments?-No
Belief that abortion is acceptable?-No
Belief that contraception is acceptable?-No
Belief that there is no Real Presence?-No
Belief in marriage in heaven?-No
Belief that man can become a God and rule his own world?-No

Well, those are a few that quickly came to mind.

Hope it helps.

A few more…

Belief that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament but the Father is the God of the New Testament(and our God)-No
Belief that Jesus was married and had children-No
Belief that Jesus never drank real wine, only grape juice-No
Belief that race should exclude a person from the priesthood-No
Belief that divorce and re-marriage is acceptable-No

 

[tkdnick]

Tmaque:

A few more…
Belief that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament but the Father is the God of the New Testament(and our God)-No
Belief that Jesus was married and had children-No
Belief that Jesus never drank real wine, only grape juice-No
Belief that race should exclude a person from the priesthood-No
Belief that divorce and re-marriage is acceptable-No

I’m guessing you could do a whole bunch more huh? One of the benefits of having been on “both sides” of this situation.

 

[Tmaque]

TOmNossor:

LDS do not believe in original sin. LDS beliefs are much closer to Eastern Orthodox beliefs than they are to western Christianity.

Your very clear error is in suggesting that original sin has early witness. The concept of original sin was developed by Augustine in the 5th century. LDS beliefs are closer to Early Christianity than are Catholic beliefs.

]

I believe the first WRITTEN mention of original sin was by Tertullian in the 2nd century. That doesn’t mean it was not a widely held belief especially in light of Paul’s writings. I disagree that LDS beliefs on original sin are closer to the Eastern Orthodox then the Catholic are. The evidence of that is when they baptize their children. If they believe that baptism has no efficacy for an infant (like Mormons do) then why do they do it? They do it because they see it as the first step in removing the stain of Adam’s transgression (just like Catholics). The difference is they believe that Adam and Eve are responsible for human mortality which inevitably leads to sin. They baptize babies to remove the stain of that mortal nature and to give an immortal nature to the child’s soul (just like Catholics). We Catholics refer to original sin but it is not meant to be the same as individual sin and we don’t believe that unbaptized babies go to hell.

I don’t have time to respond to all of your challenges. I wish i did. This will have to do for now.

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

ACTUALLY, what He says that in the resurrection people neither marry nor are given in marriage. And in Luke He makes it specific that only people of this age marry and are given in marriage.

Here is something I wrote about a year ago.
The scripture:
The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him… Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. (Matthew 22:23-30)

Here are the things that in my mind mute this.

1. The CoJCoLDS does not believe that the Eternal Marriage is something that can be preformed in heaven. This is the reason that it is preformed by proxy in Temples. The same is true of Baptism. So “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage.” Those who are not seal on earth for themselves or by proxy are not married in heaven.
2. The men said the men “were with us” those married of men do not have eternal marriage. See D&C 132:15-16. As I alluded to in #1 the ordinances will be preformed by proxy, but this can only effect those who possessed the proper spirit and never had the chance to participate in the proper ordinance. There is no second chance for the ordinance and all that occurs after death is predicated upon the earthly life.
3. Jesus was speaking to the Sadducees who denied the resurrection. It was not critical to expound upon the much deeper truths associated with Eternal Marriage with a group of folks who are unable to accept the more basic truth of the resurrection. This is the “pearls before swine.” Jesus knew these men would only find additional things to ridicule God’s plan were he to attempt to explain more.

Ephesians 5:31-32
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

The above passage specifically calls this a great mystery. With the sacredness associated with Eternal Marriage in LDS thought this could be a parallel in the early church.

1. The CoJCoLDS believes that an eternal marriage is a choice. It is inconsistent with our theology to suggest that those who are married (even sealed), but who are not united in a one flesh (much more than sexual) relationship will be eternal companions. Sealed couples choose to continue their bond 100% free of compulsion or outside influences. The marriages the Sadducees spoke of never seemed to be marriages of love or true uniting. They where marriages of the law. Jesus’ words also point to being “given in marriage,” further lending support to the arrangement or marriage of the law rather than the marriage of uniting. So, together with the above this would explain why what Jesus said was completely true and answered the question. In the environment in which the Sadducees lived arranged marriages were not something they would have to stretch to acknowledge. This was just the way it was in many cases. To us it seems foreign, but likely this was something all these men were very familiar with.
2. Some of the above comes from Bickmore. This is Bickmore’s quote of Tvednes:

In the Apocrypha… we read of a young woman, Sarah, who had been married to seven husbands (all brothers), each of whom was killed on the wedding night by a demon. But in the story (Tobit 6:10-8:9), Sara ultimately marries an eighth husband, Tobias, son of Tobit, who, following instructions from the archangel Raphael, manages to chase the demon away and is therefore not slain. Of special interest is the fact that the archangel (who, according to Tobit 3:17, had been sent to arrange the marriage) tells the young man that his wife had been appointed to him “from the beginning” (Tobit 6:17). This implies that she had not been sealed to any of her earlier husbands, which would explain why none of them would claim her in the resurrection, as Jesus explained. But if she were sealed to Tobias, the situation changes. Assuming that the Sadducees (whose real issue was one of resurrection, not of eternal marriage) were alluding to this story but left off part of it, this would explain why Jesus told them, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God”

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

TOm:
At the end of this message I will include some more of Bickmore’s ideas from the link I will also include.
Some more positive points:

Genesis 2:18
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Matthew 19:6
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

TOm:
So in keeping with the idea of #2 above, earthly marriages are until death do us part, but heavenly marriages are forever.

In fact, in the Garden of Eden man and women where united forever. The fall lead to death. If death resulted in the separation of man and woman, and the atonement did not renew the original unity God called “good” in the Garden of Eden, then it was not an infinite atonement.

Another thing I might note. The unity associated with becoming one with God will result in a different type of closeness than that experience by earthly couples. In a sense this will be different than marriage, but Christendom generally recognizes that we will know each other in heaven. With this knowledge and the heavenly bond of marriage we formed upon this earth, the two will still be united. I know that LDS place a greater emphasis upon this than non-LDS, but I believe this common ground does not fail either of our theologies.

Here is more from Barry Bickmore:
http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/1999BicB.html
Finally, many Jewish Christians did practice a form of celestial marriage, and this can be traced back to the first century. The Christian philosopher Origen complained in the third century about the Jewish Christians and others who believed in a literal millennial reign of Christ, and he added this:
Certain persons…are of the opinion that the fulfillment of the promises of the future are to be looked for in bodily pleasure and luxury…. And consequently they say, that after the resurrection there will be marriages, and the begetting of children…. Such are the views of those who, while believing in Christ, understand the divine Scriptures in a sort of Jewish sense, drawing from them nothing worthy of the divine promises. 103
Cardinal Daniélou infers a similar interpretation from an enigmatic passage in the Didache, a first-century Jewish Christian document, where prophets are mentioned as performing something called “the cosmic mystery of the Church”.104 Daniélou links this mystery to the type of “spiritual marriages” some Gnostic groups practiced:
The expression “cosmic mystery of the Church” seems to stand in opposition to a “heavenly mystery of the church”. This heavenly mystery is the celestial marriage of Christ to the Church, which also finds its expression in this world. The allusion in this passage would therefore seem to be to those spiritual unions which existed in Jewish Christianity between prophet-apostles and a sister. . . The relation of these unions to their heavenly ideal is explicitly stated by the Gnostics: “Some of them prepare a nuptial couch and perform a sort of mystic rite (mystagogia)…affirming that what is performed by them is a spiritual marriage after the likeness of the unions…above” (Adv. haer. I, 21:3).
The Gnostic rite is described in the Gospel of Philip as being performed in “the mirrored bridal chamber”, and “those who have united in the bridal chamber will no longer be separated.” Stuart George Hall writes that Melito, Bishop of Sardis in the late second century, may have preserved a fragment of the ancient bridal chamber ceremony in his writings, as well.
Charity, TOm
PS:
If you think this is long, convoluted, and does not prove my point; I agree. I see other such explanations in Catholicism.

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

TOm:Origen complained in the third century about the Jewish Christians and others who believed in a literal millennial reign of Christ, and he added this:
Certain persons…are of the opinion that the fulfillment of the promises of the future are to be looked for in bodily pleasure and luxury…. And consequently they say, that after the resurrection there will be marriages, and the begetting of children…. Such are the views of those who, while believing in Christ, understand the divine Scriptures in a sort of Jewish sense, drawing from them nothing worthy of the divine promises. 103
Doesn’t this make a pretty strong case against the LDS belief that man will become a god and beget spirit children with his wife??? I think I remember you saying you don’t necessarily hold to this, but I know several LDS who believe this is exactly what will happen.

If you think this is long, convoluted, and does not prove my point; I agree. I see other such explanations in Catholicism.

If you think this is long, convoluted, and doesn’t prove your point, then why did you use it as your response?

 

[TOmNossor]

Tmaque:

I believe the first WRITTEN mention of original sin was by Tertullian in the 2nd century.

I am not sure exactly what you refer to in Tertullian.

Let us not forget that LDS theology does embrace the inherited fallen nature. We just do not inherit GUILT/SIN. Our fallen nature is a product of the fall in the Garden of Eden. No person can choose of themselves to avoid all sin. Our nature is not such that we can do this. Before the age of accountability Christ’s atonement is applied universally. After the age of accountability we are called to embrace Christ to make his atonement increasingly effective in our lives. So the first written record of the fall is Genesis (perhaps), but that does not equate to original sin.

Curiously, Tertullian is rather famous for being an opponent of infant Baptism. Here are some of his words.

Tertullian, treatise on BAPTISM 18,4 (c. AD 200-206):

"

According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children. Why, indeed, is it necessary – if it be not a case of necessity – that the sponsors to be thrust into danger, when they themselves may fail to fulfill their promises by reason of death, or when they may be disappointed by the growth of an evil disposition? Indeed the Lord says, ‘Do not forbid them to come to me’ [Matt 19:14; Luke 18:16].

"Let them come, then, while they grow up, while they learn, while they are taught to whom to come; let them become Christians when they will have been able to know Christ! Why does the innocent age hasten to the remission of sins?

Origin struggled with Infant Baptism and ultimately postulated a pre-existence only to be declared heretical in 566AD long after his death.

Here is a scholar who supports the idea that original sin was an Augustinian invention. David F. Wright, in "How Controversial Was the Development of Infant Baptism in the Early Church” refers to Infant Baptism before Augustine as, “a practice in search of a theology.”

I better stop here, but I suspect I could find more.

Tmaque:

That doesn’t mean it was not a widely held belief especially in light of Paul’s writings.

Of course LDS fully embrace Paul’s writings.

Tmaque:

I disagree that LDS beliefs on original sin are closer to the Eastern Orthodox then the Catholic are.

I am not sure who would prevail if we were to investigate what you disagree with here, but it was not what I said. What I said is the LDS are closer to EOs than are LDS to Catholics. EOs speak of fallen nature generally and not original sin.

Tmaque:

The evidence of that is when they baptize their children. If they believe that baptism has no efficacy for an infant (like Mormons do) then why do they do it? They do it because they see it as the first step in removing the stain of Adam’s transgression (just like Catholics). The difference is they believe that Adam and Eve are responsible for human mortality which inevitably leads to sin. They baptize babies to remove the stain of that mortal nature and to give an immortal nature to the child’s soul (just like Catholics).

The purpose of Baptism for the Catholic and the EO is not just associated with the removal of sin or the regeneration to a new nature. In any case, it is appropriate to say that LDS are regenerated through baptism. LDS are closer to EOs. We reject the “original sin” idea and in fact this was a 5th century development. Again, this is a restoration of more ancient Christianity within a protestant environment were original sin was readily accepted.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Tmaque:

We Catholics refer to original sin but it is not meant to be the same as individual sin and we don’t believe that unbaptized babies go to hell.

Actually, I think you are mistaken. All who are not Baptized do in fact go to hell. The Catholic Church has developed (extended after its original development) the concept of Baptism of Desire. This originally was postulated with respect to catechumens, but now Catholics say they do not know who is eligible and who is not. There is also Baptism of Blood for martyrs. I am not absolutely certain of the above, it would be interesting if you disagree.

It is also interesting to me to look at the Clementine Recognitions and their emphasis upon water Baptism and ask, does Baptism for the Dead or Baptism of Desire satisfy these requirements.

Tmaque:

I don’t have time to respond to all of your challenges. I wish i did. This will have to do for now.

I do not write a lot to discourage you from responding. I think it takes a lot to say some things. I am also fairly verbose in my methods of speaking. I do not know what to do about this. Respond as you can.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

Doesn’t this make a pretty strong case against the LDS belief that man will become a god and beget spirit children with his wife??? I think I remember you saying you don’t necessarily hold to this, but I know several LDS who believe this is exactly what will happen.

What Origin shows is that some folks believed in marriage in heaven, but it seems he did not. This just shows that marriage in heaven does have some early adherents who perhaps follow in the earlier, “Jewish sense.” (and modern Jews do not embrace eternal marriage).

Also, I would say it is a mischaracterization to say that LDS believe eternal marriage will be some type of sexual feast. I see nothing in LDS scripture that demands this. And while I believe eternal increase is generally linked to spirit children, I do not even thing this is demanded by LDS scripture.

tkdnick:
If you think this is long, convoluted, and doesn’t prove your point, then why did you use it as your response?

Well, I suggest that the Bible far from slam dunks eternal marriage, but this is not a strong point for LDS theology. In responding it is my attempt to show that LDS theology is not contradicted by the Bible, but I do not believe that my pro-eternal marriage comments from the Bible demand that it must be accepted. On the whole I think LDS loose this particular battle, but not by too much.

Charity, TOm

 

[cestusdei]

I seriously doubt the Orthodox would claim that they are close to the lds. Just compare the Divine Liturgy to your average ward service or your temple ceremonies. Origen was a speculative theologian and he did fall into heresy at times. Also he seems to have had a great veneration for celibacy, so much so that he apparently castrated himself. Is there a similiar idea in lds theology? If not then maybe the jump is just a bit to far.

 

[TOmNossor]

cestusdei:

I seriously doubt the Orthodox would claim that they are close to the lds. Just compare the Divine Liturgy to your average ward service or your temple ceremonies.

I do not see a tremendous amount of similarities in the Divine Liturgy and in the ward service. I do not completely understand why you are pursuing this line of thought unless it is to move away from the similarities I did point to. Namely, Orthodox speak of the inherited fallen nature not original sin, just as LDS do.

cestusdei:

Origen was a speculative theologian and he did fall into heresy at times. Also he seems to have had a great veneration for celibacy, so much so that he apparently castrated himself. Is there a similiar idea in lds theology? If not then maybe the jump is just a bit to far.

I do not strictly disagree with this. It is very clear that Origin felt a great deal of freedom in his pursuit to understand what scripture and tradition taught him. What components of his thoughts were in line with Jesus Christ and what were not we might disagree upon. I am not a fan of castration, but his ideas and writings show clear and deep thinking on many subjects.

Charity, TOm

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

Namely, Orthodox speak of the inherited fallen nature not original sin, just as LDS do.

Original sin is inheriting the fallen nature.

 

[cestusdei]

Tom,
He was in many ways a good scripture scholar. He was also a Catholic priest. It is nice you quote the Fathers. But really, think about it, do the Fathers really look like proto-Mormons? I have never been told exactly when a supposed apostacy occured or what precipitated it. The lds church just says it happened and assumes no questions will be asked. But if you look at the sub-apostolic Fathers, those who actually knew the apostles, there is continuity. I see no evidence of a great apostacy at any point in the early church.

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

Original sin is inheriting the fallen nature.

The question is, “Do we have guilt inherited from Adam?” To my knowledge, Catholics say, “Yes.” LDS say emphatically, “No!” And my understanding is that EOs certainly do not say, “Yes.”

I do not believe the differences are as huge as some may say. For us adults it is not particularly important. For post Vatican II Catholics there are answers to these concerns that are very authoritative for infants even.

Towards defining a distinction as Tmaque did, LDS prevail here as I see it. We can show that original sin/guilt was developed and that our view is at home in early Christianity.

Just for the sake of honesty, pedobaptism is a much tougher question that I see far more evenly balanced.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

cestusdei:

It is nice you quote the Fathers. But really, think about it, do the Fathers really look like proto-Mormons?

I am not arguing that I can show that the fathers are proto-Mormons. I am suggesting that orthodoxy developed. (in truth I was just responding to what I consider to be a flawed apologetic from tmaque). If the authority that developed orthodoxy was not valid the conclusions of that authority are not necessarily correct. From the earliest of the orthodox ECF, we see little or nothing that conflicts with LDS theology. As we walk forward in time we begin to see more and more things that are solidly non-LDS. Many of these things become orthodox and are then accented.

Also, is the surviving records of the Early Church evidence that Early Christians are proto-Catholics. Not only do I say no, I also say that this “no” is even more powerful because orthodoxy preserved the records we have in most instances. Oat Soda proposed a Clement test (post #178). This test invalidates Catholicism too.

I am also putting forth that for Joseph Smith to randomly guess and arrive at so many ideas that have solid Early Church support is unlikely. The presence of these ideas in the Early Church is something Joseph Smith could not have known about.

cestusdei:

I have never been told exactly when a supposed apostacy occured or what precipitated it. The lds church just says it happened and assumes no questions will be asked. But if you look at the sub-apostolic Fathers, those who actually knew the apostles, there is continuity. I see no evidence of a great apostacy at any point in the early church.

To my knowledge there is no official stance on the timing or cause of the apostasy. There are certainly some very prevalent positions on some of the symptoms of the apostasy, but I am not sure I would call these official.

What I think is generally accepted is that the Apostasy is an apostasy of the fullness of the authority. Catholics typically speak of the apostasy as a complete departure from belief in Christ, but LDS do not mean this. We mean an absence of authority.

Some would point to heresy as a cause of the absence of authority, but I think this is becoming less prevalent. I point to heresy as a symptom of the absence of authority.

My personal opinion is that the authority possessed by Peter was not passed to the Bishop of Rome. The local authority of the Bishops was a valid authority, but it was not such that universal theological questions could be answered. The Bishop was sufficient for addressing the needs of his local flock, but he could not (nor could he gather in a council to do so) define the Trinity and other things for the entire church.

After Pope St. Stephen prevailed over St. Cyprian and two African councils, the acceptance of heretical (and non-authoritative) baptism resulted in a slow erosion of the local authority that was valid. A some future time, everyone was either baptized by someone without valid authority or ordained by someone without valid authority. Martin Luther observed that if a valid authority was required for baptism then this practice would have resulted in an absence of authority. He concluded that the authority was not necessary. I think he was wrong.

I can provide a number of reasons for putting forth the above.

In addition to the above “evidence,” we can track a number of developments within the Early Church that move us from more LDS positions to less LDS positons. Creation ex Nihilo in my opinion is a keystone in much of the restoration evidences to which LDS can point.

Of course the Cardinal Newman Catholic option is not untenable. I just do not believe it is as strong as the restoration position.

Charity, TOm

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

Just for the sake of honesty, pedobaptism is a much tougher question that I see far more evenly balanced.

What is pedobaptism?