The Great Apostasy Debate

[TOmNossor]

cestusdei:

Tom,

You don’t happen to belong to FARMS or work with them do you? Also since Mormons reject what St. Justin says about the Eucharist and most other things it is a bit nit picky to mine him, or the Fathers, for partial quotes.

I think I am more flattered when Catholic say I sound Catholic. I need to participate more on threads like this one. But, no I am a little guy who reads.

I have mentioned a number of times that Newman and Bishop Kaye explain that Justin Martyr is heretical in his view of the Eucharist.

I think St. Justin’s clear advocacy of creation ex materia is fundamental to understanding the tremendous amount of conflicts that resulted in the early church that I link solidly to the embracing of creation ex nihilo. Also, creation ex nihilo is at the heart of the only real difference between LDS and Catholic/ECF deification.

Concerning the use of the ECF, LDS are consistent (if irritating) when we do this. First, most LDS embrace an early apostasy of authority. This means that other than the actual writings of the apostles there are not any writings by those with the authority to define the faith. But, few LDS think the Catholic saints from the first number of centuries are evil guys bent on leading the church into error. Barry Bickmore convincingly lays out then supports his hypothesis that LDS doctrines are found in greater abundance and non-LDS doctrines are found in lesser abundance as temporal separation from the apostles decreases. For this reason LDS point to the writings of the Early Church and say we find evidence that our beliefs existed in the early church. We then can show when our beliefs were declared heretical by the supposed infallible authority. This is a solid and logical apologetic tactic for LDS.

Again, I am sure you do not agree with my conclusions, but can you see why this is a logical apologetic tactic?

Charity, TOm

 

[cestusdei]

Hmmm…so Justin is an apostate, but yet you quote him as an authority to defend the LDS view? If the apostacy had occured and he was part of it then shouldn’t you reject him? Keep in mind that from our perspective the Church judges the Fathers as to heresy or orthodoxy. They are our Fathers after all. Glad to know you are not a FARMS plant.

 

[TOmNossor]

catholic-rcia:

Satan wants to make us think we can be a God as God is, Jesus saves us because we can’t

I hope we will get somewhere with this post.

I agree with every word you just said. God is God of Himself. We cannot be God as God is because we must lean upon Jesus Christ. It is through Him that we become as He is.

Satan would have us believe that we can do it on our own. He is happy if we try to obey all the laws and earn our salvation, and then die having never realized we couldn’t do this except through Christ. He is happy if we turn to this world and become our own god, be that as a scholar, as a political leader, or as a head of a ministry.
Where we disagree is that I experience God as my Father. This is among the most profound aspects of how divinity has touched me in my life. I know God is calling me to Him so that He can lift me up. I know that through Him I can be all He desires for me to be. And the totality of the truth I have gleaned from direct interaction with deity and from study suggests that God desires to make me a god. Not some separate or some equal or some competing god, but united in a divine union with Him as the source of divinity. This is what I see in LDS theology.
It is very similar to what I see in Catholic theology. Again the only difference is associated with our initial and final metaphysical natures. There is no room in Catholic thought for men to be homoousian with God today. There are few Catholics who would suggest that men may become homoousian with God as part of His lifting us up. LDS believe that we are homoousian today and that deification involves the lifting up and uniting with God. Our fallen nature is associated with our separation from God not associated with metaphysical differences.

catholic-rcia:
Tom, tell me about all those things that I can gain in heaven if I were to follow your teachings, those things that you yourself accept? Take me to the top of that hill and show me all of those rewards that I will be receiving. But if it’s Not God and Him alone do not waste your time. Because in the end He is all I desire.
But do let me know what your Church could offer me in heaven.
If I could respond to this question and provide you with a picture of a reward associated with becoming a LDS that enticed you to become a LDS, you would be farther from obtaining what God desires for you than if you remained a Catholic.

If we worship God for what he can give us, then we are really only worship ourselves.

I believe as I do because I believe this is how God has guided me spiritually and intellectually. I am entirely convinced that if I die tomorrow I will not find myself deified, and I rejoice in what I have received from God anyway.

As I have said a number of times to the strict Calvinist who tell me that if I cannot see the truth it is because I am “non-elect,” I do not care about such things. If I die and discover that the elect are saved and the non-elect damned (and that I am non-elect), I will still thank God for the wonderful life He gave to me. Without Him I would not have even had that. So, I am not a LDS, a Christian, a theist, or … because I think it will get me more toys after I die. I believe as I do because it is truth as best I can discern. I hope you do the same in your life.

I will go you a little farther. A couple of years ago I taught a lesson the 16-17 year olds. We progressed through a number of steps until we concluded with the thought that we love God because of who He is. Not because of what He has given us, not because of what He will give us. Not because of the penalties associated with not loving Him. Not because it is an easier path through this life and the next.

To truly know God is to be unable to not love Him. You suggest that all you want is to return to God and will accept nothing else. I suggest the final step in our journey toward God is not desiring to be with God because of how wonderful that will be, but rather desiring to do God’s will because of how wonderful He is.

Charity, TOm

 

[cestusdei]

The area where Justin discusses this is on the resurrection. He is attempting to defend it to the greek pagans. Therefore he uses Plato et al. to defend the Christian idea of the resurrection. It is not apparent that he accepts their ideas uncritically. For example he mentions they believe that we are made out of the 4 elements. Not something that Mormons would say is part of their doctrine. It looks to me like he is using their sources and authorities to prove his point on the resurrection of the body. Rather like me quoting the BOM to refute the LDS church. I think you are incorrect to assert that Justin accepted their ideas. He is simply quoting authorities they would respect and accept.

 

[cestusdei]

Here is a quote from Justin where he blasts Plato and his idea of creation (the LDS one too):

CHAPTER VII.–INCONSISTENCIES OF PLATO’S DOCTRINE.

But in these things they are convicted of thinking in contradiction to each other. And if any one will accurately criticise their writings, they have chosen to abide in harmony not even with their own opinions. Plato, at any rate, at one time says that there are three first principles of the universe–God, and matter, and form; but at another time four, for he adds the universal soul. And again, when he has already said that matter is eternal, he afterwards says that it is produced; and when he has first given to form its peculiar rank as a first principle, and has asserted for its self-subsistence, he afterwards says that this same thing is among the things perceived by the understanding.

So he points out the inconsistanies and disagreements among even Plato and Aristotle. I think you have completely misconstrued what Justin is doing as an apologist.

 

[TOmNossor]

cestusdei:

Hmmm…so Justin is an apostate, but yet you quote him as an authority to defend the LDS view? If the apostacy had occured and he was part of it then shouldn’t you reject him? Keep in mind that from our perspective the Church judges the Fathers as to heresy or orthodoxy. They are our Fathers after all. Glad to know you are not a FARMS plant.

Oh! Perhaps this is our problem.

I have made this observation before, but perhaps you have never seen it.

The word Apostasy within Catholic vocabulary means a complete departure from the faith. In its strictest sense Protestants are heretical Catholics not apostate Catholics.

Apostasy as used by the CoJCoLDS refers to a departure from valid authority.

Neither you nor I believe that St. Justin Martyr possesses the authority Peter did. This does not mean that he cannot relate beliefs of the early church so that we might better understand what the early church believed. This is why his embracing of Creation ex Materia is so important. It is also important to note that he was heretical in his beliefs on the Eucharist. Neither of these truths demonstrated that the Catholic Church does not have the world wide authority. But both of these truths have bearing on the questions, “Did the CoJCoLDS restore Early Church beliefs?” and “Does tradition support the developed doctrines of the Catholic Church?”

Is that now clear?

Charity, TOm

PS.
Another concern I have.
I do not grant that the ECFs are your fathers. As I have said before, the words of the earliest of the ECFs often are more at home in the CoJCoLDS than they are in the Catholic Church.

Almost all of the ECFs are generally good men. They generally try to follow the teachings of Christ as they understand them. They are a valuable source of information on what the Early Church believed. I can read their words just as easily as you can (except that my Latin and Greek border on non-existent and I do not have their words in Latin or Greek anyway). When the discussion is who best represents the early church and you apply a Catholic filter to the words of the ECF, because they are your guys, you act illogically. I think this is part of our problem too. Your methods produce your results rather than evaluate the evidence.

 

[TOmNossor]

Cestusdei,

Are you actual suggesting that Justin does not embrace creation ex materia. He says it is truth. He says it derives from Moses and that the philosophers copied him. Here are his words.

Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 59 - Chapter LIX.-Plato’s Obligation to Moses:
And that you may learn that it was from our teachers-we mean the account given through the prophets-that Plato borrowed his statement that God, having altered matter which was shapeless, made the world, hear the very words spoken through Moses, who, as above shown, was the first prophet, and of greater antiquity than the Greek writers; and through whom the Spirit of prophecy, signifying how and from what materials God at first formed the world, spake thus: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and unfurnished, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and it was so.” So that both Plato and they who agree with him, and we ourselves, have learned, and you also can be convinced, that by the word of God the whole world was made out of the substance spoken of before by Moses. And that which the poets call Erebus, we know was spoken of formerly by Moses.

That the philosophers may have been inconsistent in some of the thing they said, does not change the fact that St. Justin here claims that God made all out of preexisting matter. He claims that in this aspect the philosophers are borrowing from Moses.

Again, Gerard May (a non-LDS scholar) has evaluated the various creation concepts and he shows that “creation ex nihilo” was a product of 2nd century thought and not present before this. He assigns its cause as a desire by various folks to emphasize the sovereign-ness and uniqueness of God. Eventually it became a response to the Gnostics.

I do not regularly see Justin’s view questioned as you have. There are some other problematic things that May addresses, but if I remember correct May points solidly to St. Justin.

Charity, TOm

 

[cestusdei]

Tom,
As I point out he is an apologist and is using their sources. It is the authority of the Church to decide if he was in error. I see no loss of authority in the early Church, look at Irenaeaus. Here is what Justin says about the Eucharist:

CHAPTER LXVI – OF THE EUCHARIST.

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone.

Sound Mormon? Nope. It is much more in line with us. Granted he doesn’t use transubstantiation, but we also believe in doctrinal development. But he seems quite clear it is Christ’s body and blood not just a symbol.

 

[cestusdei]

Here are Justin’s thoughts concerning God. It also doesn’t sound very Mormon:

God. Justin’s teaching concerning God has been very diversely interpreted, some seeing in it nothing but a philosophic speculation (Engelhardt, 127 sq., 237 sqq.), others a truly Christian faith (Flemming, “Zur Beurteilung des Christentums Justins des Märtyrers”, Leipzig, 1893, 70 sqq.; Stählin, “Justin der Märtyrer und sein neuester Beurtheiler”, 34 sqq., Purves, op. cit., 142 sqq.). In reality it is possible to find in it these two tendencies: on one side the influence of philosophy betrays itself in his concept of the Divine transcendency, thus God is immovable (I Apol., ix; x, 1; lxiii, 1; etc.); He is above the heaven, can neither be seen nor enclosed within space (Dial., lvi, lx, cxxvii); He is called Father, in a philosophic and Platonistic sense, inasmuch as He is the Creator of the world (I Apol., xlv, 1; lxi, 3; lxv, 3; II Apol., vi, 1, etc.). On the other hand we see the God of the Bible in his all-powerful (Dial., lxxxiv; I Apol., xix, 6), and merciful God (Dial., lxxxiv; I Apol., xix, 6), and merciful God (Dial., cviii, lv, etc.); if He ordained the Sabbath it was not that He had need of the homage of the Jews, but that He desired to attach them to Himself (Dial., xxii); through His mercy He preserved among them a seed of salvation (lv); through His Divine Providence He has rendered the nations worthy of their inheritance (cxviiicxxx); He delays the end of the world on account of the Christians (xxxix; I Apol., xxviii, xlv). And the great duty of man is to love Him (Dial., xciii).

 

[TOmNossor]

cestusdei:

Sound Mormon? Nope. It is much more in line with us. Granted he doesn’t use transubstantiation, but we also believe in doctrinal development. But he seems quite clear it is Christ’s body and blood not just a symbol.

It is not Mormon. It is not Catholic. It is actually Lutheran. St. Justin embraces consubstantiation. I am pretty sure I said this earlier in the thread.

Charity, TOm

 

[cestusdei]

Tom,
I am sure you did. However, he is clearly speaking of the real presence. You seem to demand a sophisticated modern vocabulary from the Fathers. You won’t get it. I think it is because you reject development of doctrine and see it as apostacy. So therefore you get the result you desire every time. In effect you stack the deck from the start. You say “ah this sounds LDS therefore it is a hold over belief”, but this sounds more Catholic “so it is the beginning of apostacy”. In effect we will get nowhere. So who is to judge? I don’t accept your or the LDS judgement and you don’t accept ours. But the burden is on you not us. We have been around much longer. You have to PROVE the LDS view. Frankly given the paucity of any evidence of any sort of LDS early church you have your work cut out for you. As I have said before non-lds scholars don’t accept it and FARMS won’t do peer review of their work.

Justin was a man of his time. He probably believed that their medical practices were correct. We know they are not. The Bible talks of the sun “rising”. We know it doesn’t “rise”, but that the earth rotates. Moses may well have believed the earth was flat. That does not perturb us, although it should you. Selectively mining the Fathers is like mining scripture for quotes. In the end it comes down to whose interpretation and whose scholarship is acceptable. I don’t do eisegesis for scripture OR the Fathers. I see them in the context of their times. Certainly I don’t expect them, for example, to have a full blown explanation of the Trinity in the 2nd century. You see movement towards apostacy. We see movement towards a fuller understanding of the deposit of faith. No one, except LDS, see any evidence of early Mormonism. When you quote the Fathers or the Bible you “drink from a well you did not dig”.

 

[TOmNossor]

cestusdei:

Here are Justin’s thoughts concerning God. It also doesn’t sound very Mormon:

God. Justin’s teaching concerning God has been very diversely interpreted, some seeing in it nothing but a philosophic speculation (Engelhardt, 127 sq., 237 sqq.), others a truly Christian faith (Flemming, “Zur Beurteilung des Christentums Justins des Märtyrers”, Leipzig, 1893, 70 sqq.; Stählin, “Justin der Märtyrer und sein neuester Beurtheiler”, 34 sqq., Purves, op. cit., 142 sqq.). In reality it is possible to find in it these two tendencies: on one side the influence of philosophy betrays itself in his concept of the Divine transcendency, thus God is immovable (I Apol., ix; x, 1; lxiii, 1; etc.); He is above the heaven, can neither be seen nor enclosed within space (Dial., lvi, lx, cxxvii); He is called Father, in a philosophic and Platonistic sense, inasmuch as He is the Creator of the world (I Apol., xlv, 1; lxi, 3; lxv, 3; II Apol., vi, 1, etc.). On the other hand we see the God of the Bible in his all-powerful (Dial., lxxxiv; I Apol., xix, 6), and merciful God (Dial., lxxxiv; I Apol., xix, 6), and merciful God (Dial., cviii, lv, etc.); if He ordained the Sabbath it was not that He had need of the homage of the Jews, but that He desired to attach them to Himself (Dial., xxii); through His mercy He preserved among them a seed of salvation (lv); through His Divine Providence He has rendered the nations worthy of their inheritance (cxviiicxxx); He delays the end of the world on account of the Christians (xxxix; I Apol., xxviii, xlv). And the great duty of man is to love Him (Dial., xciii).

I do not see anything above that I strictly have a problem with. Perhaps you could develop what you think St. Justin says that I should object too.

I have read the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on St. Justin before, but I was not too offended.

I do not suggest that Justin was a perfectly orthodox LDS (whatever that means), but I do not suggest that my Bishop or Brigham Young is/was either.

Charity, TOm

 

[cestusdei]

If we extend the debate you will find yourself arguing that matter predates God. God is therefore NOT the creator of the universe. He is a product of the universe. Not eternal. Not really God. The universe would be God and a mindless one at that.

In the beginning was matter and matter made God…

Really want to go there?

 

[Benadam]

TOmNossor:

“That the Early Church was never able to hop on the surfboard of authority and ride the wave,” is in fact part of what I am saying. Not only this, but I think it was always God’s purpose that the greater authority would not be passed down the line of Bishops.

The reason that doctrinal restorations are evidence of the restoration is that there is no evidence that Joseph Smith could have known what to restore. He was either very lucky or divinely guided.

The reason that doctrinal development sealed by supposedly infallible authority that is contrary to tradition and God’s truth is evidence of the apostasy of authority seems to be clear. If it was an infallible authority it would not have erred. If it erred it was not an infallible authority.

Peter possessed the authority. Jesus Christ possessed the authority. I do not think Linus, Cletus, or Clement possessed the authority to lead the world church. The position of Bishop over a local flock is solidly linked to the Bible and the earliest words of the ECF. History evidences that these bishops began to have a small regional authority. Then there were patriarchs. And ultimately there was a Bishop of Rome = Pope (who was rejected as not prime by the Eastern Orthodox Church).

There is no doubt in my mind that you disagree. But do you understand what I am suggesting? It is not that errors caused the removal of authority. The lesser authority I think ultimately vanished when contrary to Apostolic tradition baptisms were preformed by those with no authority (and with heretical beliefs), but the authority to seal infallibly and to lead the worldwide church was not passed to the Bishop of Rome.

Charity, TOm
Tom,
yes I understand now what you mean. I picture the chair of Moses and Christ as examples of the greater and lesser authorities at that time. You seem to be saying that the greater authority either was not handed down or was taken away and the RC has been operating with the lesser authority. Then God in God’s time He deemed it necessary to reestablish the greater authority on earth that He had planted the seeds of in South America .

You are right I disagree because it divides one reality into two. For example; the seperation of body and spirit is exposed when one divides the one conjugal act with two purposes into two acts with two purposes. Sometimes an act to unify,sometimes an act to procreate, most effectively accomplished with contraceptives.

If your concept of a greater and lesser authority were true your historic division of it would deny the oneness of it’s reality by projecting onto it the type of death humanity experiences in the fallen state.Much like contraceptives put a physical barrier between the two purposes of the conjugal act and is a manifestation of the seperateness of spirit and flesh in the fallen state, an historic lapse in authorities action puts a barrier between the purposes you suggest as well. You contracept it’s action with a time barrier.

 

[Chris-WA]

TOmNossor:

I present a number of reasons that Clement’s letter is inconsistent with him being the Pope in the link to a previous discussion that I posted earlier in this thread. I am not sure if anyone has looked at that. I do not agree that Clement’s letter sounds authoritative. The introduction is quite neutral. The other passages you quote do not appear in the letter most often called Clement First Epistle to the Corinthians. I deal with this and what these passages say on post #347-351 of the Smithsonian thread.

I looked through the Catholic Encyclopedia link. I am sure I have been there before. This time I noticed (in the Linus link) that surviving to this day are records that state that Linus was Bishop of Rome while Peter and Paul still lived. This of course is completely compatible with my position that Peter may have ordained Linus, but that Peter did not pass on this authority as the head of the church. Peter ordained many folks who nobody claims are at the head of the Catholic Church. Perhaps most notably is the Bishop of Antioch. I was also reminded of the great difficulty in explaining Clements supposed ordination by Peter when Clement by most accounts is the 4th Pope. Did Clement reject his position as Bishop?

There is no doubt in my mind that the succession of the Bishop of Rome and or the head of the Church is no where near as simple as most Catholic believe. I think many Catholic Apologist would like to present it as such, but it is not this way. I do not consider the development of the Papacy from Clement who had no idea he was Pope as a “fatal flaw,” but the necessity of postulating this (and some Catholics recognize this) is a strong point for my view of history. Where I Catholic I would lean on Newman’s ideas on development and “love dispenses with laws.”

Charity, TOm

Nor do I think it was simple either. As I have said several times in this thread, the blueprints of the church were not handed on a silver platter to Peter. The church had to go through a lot of struggle and building to get where it is today. But ask yourself this–what possible purpose would be for Peter to receive the keys of the kingdom as head of the church if upon his death that church would lose its authority, especially given the background under which those keys were given (Isaiah 22)? It makes no sense. Given the Old Testament type of the keys being transferred, Peter would fully expect that his office would be filled by a successor. We have a history of a church that continued on, gradually strengthening its leadership along the way to meet its needs. You point to this as evidence of apostacy. I point to it as evidence of victory under tremendous strain and persecution. Without the Holy Spirit as its protector, there is no way it could have survived.

As I see it, your view is that the church lost authority when Peter died. Yes, you believe that local bishops continued on, but that the church was now unguided and left to flail. That means that Christ did not give the Holy Spirit to protect His church. I find this conclusion lacking faith in the Apostles and Christ Himself. I know you will disagree, but the Great Apostacy certainly was not evident to the early Christians. If there was a loss of authority, they sure didn’t know it. The Great Apostacy theory developed 1600 years later during the Protestant Reformation. For hundreds of years the authority of a continuing church was basically unquestioned, with few exceptions that the church delt with along the way.

And then there is the issue of the Eucharist, which is the summit of Catholic life. You evidently see some relevance in the Catholic position. You have seen yourself how the early church viewed its importance. Compare that with what you receive in sacrament meeting each week, Tom. There is a big difference. I have been to sacrament meetings many times with my wife. Their is simply no comparison. Mormons chew on a piece of broken Wonderbread while they contemplate the Atonement. Catholics literally receive Christ’s body, blood, soul, and divinity–as it was meant to be. The Eucharist is what often draws Protestant ministers into Catholicism. They want to encounter Christ in a way that nothing else can approach. I suspect from your posts that you have begun to see its value. I encourage you to focus on this issue more deeply. God bless.

 

[TOmNossor]

cestusdei:

I am sure you did. However, he is clearly speaking of the real presence. You seem to demand a sophisticated modern vocabulary from the Fathers. You won’t get it.

Actually it was Cardinal Newman and Bishop Kaye who claimed St. Justin was expressing a heretical view of the Eucharist. It does not have to do with being unsophisticated in this case, he speaks of the bread and body co-existing. This is consubstantiation.

cestusdei:

I think it is because you reject development of doctrine and see it as apostacy. So therefore you get the result you desire every time. In effect you stack the deck from the start. You say “ah this sounds LDS therefore it is a hold over belief”, but this sounds more Catholic “so it is the beginning of apostacy”. In effect we will get nowhere.

I do not reject development from a Catholic perspective. It is not a “fatal flaw” that Catholics who emphasize Tradition develop. Cardinal Newman was able to cure me of that thinking. The question becomes is the development towards truth or not.

I point to things in the early church and say, “Look this was a belief of the early church just like Joseph Smith said. He was either very lucky or divinely guided. Look here is where the church turned from this belief.” This is a logical LDS apologetic practice.

When I said, “if irritating” it was because LDS can in fact say that were our beliefs are found we have evidence that Joseph Smith was not making thing up and were anti-LDS beliefs are found we can say that we believe the apostasy started before this. This does not change the fact that so many of Joseph Smith’s restored doctrines do have a home in the early church.

There are a few things we can get to though. First, doctrinal development occurred in the early church. For it to have been perfectly correct there must have been a valid authority. This is a huge problem for protestants in my opinion who thing the development is perfectly correct.

Next, Tradition is not as universal as most Catholics think. St. Vincent de Lerins maxim does not produce Catholic doctrine.

And lastly, there are a number of doctrines Joseph Smith could have postulated that would have little or no support in the early church, “sola fide” for example, but more often than not, Joseph Smith restored doctrines that did have a place in the early church. This is a sold LDS apologetic. You may argue that the early church believed everything under the sun, but I do not think that is either true nor a good Catholic apologetic.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

cestusdei:

So who is to judge? I don’t accept your or the LDS judgement and you don’t accept ours. But the burden is on you not us. We have been around much longer. You have to PROVE the LDS view. Frankly given the paucity of any evidence of any sort of LDS early church you have your work cut out for you.

If you wish to hold LDS to this standard, I expect that you will be internally consistent and become a Jew. The were around before you and you cannot PROVE the Catholic view.

The truth is God is the judge. I recognize him in my spiritual and intellectual weighing of the evidences. I must follow the light He provides me through reason and inspiration. I have stated that my goal is to dissuade you from declaring that the CoJCoLDS makes no sense, is not defendable, cannot be embraced by thinking people, and other such things that are so commonly said.

I do not see the Papal authority in Clement (nor the recognition of that authority in Ignatius). I do not see the Pope’s authority as being similar to the New or Old Testament examples of authority from God. I do see restored doctrines evidenced in the Early Church. I do not see “fatal flaws” in the LDS early church (in fact the flaws I see are very comparable to Catholic flaws).

cestusdei:

As I have said before non-lds scholars don’t accept it and FARMS won’t do peer review of their work.

This is actually a myth. FARMS does have a peer review process. Pro-LDS positions are torn apart by FARMS regularly. I can link you to a discussion of just this with one of the heads of FARMS if you like. Heck you could engage him directly if you wish. But remember I am a simple little minion with a degree in Electrical Engineering.

cestusdei:

I don’t do eisegesis for scripture OR the Fathers. I see them in the context of their times.

Of course whether you do eisegesis or not is a matter of opinion. When you suggest that Justin Martyr did not embrace creation ex materia, I think you do eisegesis.

LDS do not do eisegesis on the Bible at all.

That we do not accept all of the developments of the Catholic Church should not be too shocking to you. If we did, we would be Catholic. Barry Bickmore’s book might be a good read for you. He suggests and does a good job of showing that the Early Church became less LDS over time. Non-LDS ideas are increasingly found as the Early Church develops away from the apostles.

cestusdei:

Certainly I don’t expect them, for example, to have a full blown explanation of the Trinity in the 2nd century. You see movement towards apostacy. We see movement towards a fuller understanding of the deposit of faith.

I see creation ex nihilo as the foundational shift that resulted in Trinity and Christological controversies for many years to come. I do not think your view is a “fatal flaw.” Logic tells me you could be correct. I just think my view is a much better read on all the available data.

I have admitted that in the absence of the CoJCoLDS I would not be a “restorationist in waiting.” I would be Catholic and it would be wonderful.

cestusdei:

No one, except LDS, see any evidence of early Mormonism. When you quote the Fathers or the Bible you “drink from a well you did not dig”.

Actually, you are not correct. Bickmore’s book is reviewed by a Catholic who sees evidence of restored doctrines (at least as compared to the Protestant position). Jordan Vajda was a Catholic who saw evidence of restored doctrines (and he remained a Catholic for 5 years). A third Catholic who I have dialogued with has expressed that it was his purpose to show that the CoJCoLDS did not restore very much. Not because our beliefs do not have roots in the Early Church but because there was much within the Catholic Church that was not lost so did not need to be restored.

And I fail to see the importance of who dug the well, but I do thank the Catholic Church for preserving the Bible.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

cestusdei:

If we extend the debate you will find yourself arguing that matter predates God. God is therefore NOT the creator of the universe. He is a product of the universe. Not eternal. Not really God. The universe would be God and a mindless one at that.

In the beginning was matter and matter made God…

Really want to go there?

The moderate party at the Council of Nicea watched as Athanasius maneuvered Arius into saying that Jesus Christ was a creature. Perhaps you will maneuver me like this, but no I have no intention of saying that matter predated God.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Benadam:

Tom,
yes I understand now what you mean. I picture the chair of Moses and Christ as examples of the greater and lesser authorities at that time. You seem to be saying that the greater authority either was not handed down or was taken away and the RC has been operating with the lesser authority. Then God in God’s time He deemed it necessary to reestablish the greater authority on earth that He had planted the seeds of in South America .

You are right I disagree because it divides one reality into two. For example; the seperation of body and spirit is exposed when one divides the one conjugal act with two purposes into two acts with two purposes. Sometimes an act to unify,sometimes an act to procreate, most effectively accomplished with contraceptives.

If your concept of a greater and lesser authority were true your historic division of it would deny the oneness of it’s reality by projecting onto it the type of death humanity experiences in the fallen state.Much like contraceptives put a physical barrier between the two purposes of the conjugal act and is a manifestation of the seperateness of spirit and flesh in the fallen state, an historic lapse in authorities action puts a barrier between the purposes you suggest as well. You contracept it’s action with a time barrier.

I am glad we achieved some understanding me to you. You may have gotten a little figurative for me though.

I think what you are saying is that it does not make sense for God to establish the greater authority (that derived from Jesus Christ) twice. LDS actually believe that the greater authority (in reality still that authority derived from Jesus Christ) has been established a number of times, but falling away occurred. Sometimes there is no divine visitation that accompanies the restart (Noah and the arc). Other times there is.

I am sure I need you to clarify your words so that I might understand more fully what you said though.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Chris-WA:

Nor do I think it was simple either. As I have said several times in this thread, the blueprints of the church were not handed on a silver platter to Peter. The church had to go through a lot of struggle and building to get where it is today. But ask yourself this–what possible purpose would be for Peter to receive the keys of the kingdom as head of the church if upon his death that church would lose its authority, especially given the background under which those keys were given (Isaiah 22)? It makes no sense. Given the Old Testament type of the keys being transferred, Peter would fully expect that his office would be filled by a successor. We have a history of a church that continued on, gradually strengthening its leadership along the way to meet its needs. You point to this as evidence of apostacy. I point to it as evidence of victory under tremendous strain and persecution. Without the Holy Spirit as its protector, there is no way it could have survived.

As I see it, your view is that the church lost authority when Peter died. Yes, you believe that local bishops continued on, but that the church was now unguided and left to flail. That means that Christ did not give the Holy Spirit to protect His church. I find this conclusion lacking faith in the Apostles and Christ Himself. I know you will disagree, but the Great Apostacy certainly was not evident to the early Christians. If there was a loss of authority, they sure didn’t know it. The Great Apostacy theory developed 1600 years later during the Protestant Reformation. For hundreds of years the authority of a continuing church was basically unquestioned, with few exceptions that the church delt with along the way.

And then there is the issue of the Eucharist, which is the summit of Catholic life. You evidently see some relevance in the Catholic position. You have seen yourself how the early church viewed its importance. Compare that with what you receive in sacrament meeting each week, Tom. There is a big difference. I have been to sacrament meetings many times with my wife. Their is simply no comparison. Mormons chew on a piece of broken Wonderbread while they contemplate the Atonement. Catholics literally receive Christ’s body, blood, soul, and divinity–as it was meant to be. The Eucharist is what often draws Protestant ministers into Catholicism. They want to encounter Christ in a way that nothing else can approach. I suspect from your posts that you have begun to see its value. I encourage you to focus on this issue more deeply. God bless.

That was an excellent post and I do have Holy envy for the real presence.

Charity, TOm