Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

David Waltz

The Great Apostasy - How, Why, and When?

Recommended Posts

Myth #1: The Apostasy happened because of outside persecution; myth

I am sure that some believe this, but I have never seen it that way. I would say it much more to do with persecution from within the church.

#2: The Apostasy was caused by the hellenization of Christianity or the incorporation of Greek philosophy and culture into the teachings of the church;

I would agree that this was not the cause. However, after the loss of priesthood keys, these things brcame rampant. The church was in tremendous turmoil while the apostles walked the earth. By the time Paul and Peter were dead, it was tto much for John to keep together. When he left the scene, it became a free for all.

and myth #3: The Roman Catholic church specifically is the great and abominable church spoken of in Nephi’s vision.

This is nonsense, in my opinion. The Catholic church had nothing to do witht he apostasy.

With all due respect, I found nothing in any of these links that makes a strong argument. Many of the links seem to copy each other, or at least make the same arguments, but I find the whole argument very weak. After John left the scene, probably somewhere around AD 100, there were already serious internal problems in the church, and beyond that, I would expect to see all kinds of new doctrines popping up.

Big Dogger says:

Jesus taught that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to little children (Mark 10:13-16). Since baptism is the entry to the Church, and the Church is the first stage of the Kingdom, as it appears in this world, babies are baptized to put them in possession of what belongs to them.

Mark 10:14

14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Christ seems to be saying that the Kingdom of God belongs to little children and to "forbid them not", which, irronically, is exactly what proponents of infant baptism are doing. They are forbiding the child to enter heaven, unless baptised. I find this scripture to work against you rather than for you.

I notice that Big Dogger and many of the listed links quote Hippolytus from somewhere around AD 200. First of all, I would expect that false teachings were already present by the year 200, however, nothing in this quote indicates, "infants".

In addition, Hippolytus was often mentioned as a bishop of Rome, but strangely enough he is never mention in the list of Popes. Hippolytus believe that the Father anf the Son were two distinclty different beings, the Son being devine, yet created, or begotten in spirit, by the Father, and was subordinate to the Father. He also taught that man can become as God. So which teachings of Hippolytus do you accept and which ones do you reject?

T-Shirt

Share this post


Link to post

Beowolf:

When Noel Reynolds says that the Hellenization is a myth, he is talking about the withdrawal of priesthood authority, which he says came very early, and without being influenced by Hellenization.

TOm:

I personally believe that the Apostolic authority was not passed on from Peter to the Bishop of Rome.

The Bishop of Rome and many of his successors.

The Bishop of Antioch and many of his successors (Ignatius).

And a number of other local Bishops, had local authority.

When the faith was threatened initially Ignatius, Clement (Bishop of Rome) and some others wrote letters to encourage the following of ones local authorities. This was sufficient, but as time went on problems seemed to get worse. Eventually, there was a perceived need for a world authority to lead the church. The Bishop of Rome over 1650 years (writings of Irenaeus

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to propose that as circumcision was the ordinance/rite of entrance into the old covenant Church (Israel), baptism is the ordinance/rite of entrance into the new covenant Church (the Christian Church). Do to the patriarchal nature of the Israelite nation, only males received this rite of entrance into the OT Church. Adult male converts who covenanted with God and the nation of Israel received circumcision, and though male infants, of course, could not themselves choose to enter into this covenantal relationship, they too were circumcised, a sign that they were children of the covenant. Circumcision was also a symbol for an inward/spiritual work of grace upon the heart. Note the following examples:

And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. (Deut. 30:6)

Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings. (Jer. 4:4)

A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. (Ezek. 36:26)

Paul picks up on this imagery, and wrote:

But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. (Rom. 2:29)

For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. (Phil. 3:3)

Paul also indicates that the body of Christ, the Christian Church, is the new Israel (see Eph. 2:11-22; Gal. 3:26-29; 6:15, 16.)

Entrance into the body of Christ, the Church, was via the ordinance/rite of baptism. IMO, the book of Acts is clear on this, starting with 2: 38, 39:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Did the children mentioned include infants? One can certainly argue either way, but not so with the household baptisms mentioned in Acts 16:15 and 16:33, for it was the entire household which received baptism; this means that if infants were members of the households, they too were baptized. I see no indication in the scriptures that infants were excluded from the ordinance/rite of baptism, and when one sees the Christian Church as the New Israel, why would infants be excluded from the ordinance/rite of entrance?

Anyway, just a few afternoon musings.

Grace and peace,

David

Share this post


Link to post
Mark 10:14

14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Christ seems to be saying that the Kingdom of God belongs to little children and to "forbid them not", which, irronically, is exactly what proponents of infant baptism are doing. They are forbiding the child to enter heaven, unless baptised. I find this scripture to work against you rather than for you.

Children that die without baptism does not necessarily forbid them from entering into heaven.

As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Peace be with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Children that die without baptism does not necessarily forbid them from entering into heaven.

As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

My first thought was, "Then why do you baptise them?" and then you said:

All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Here you seem to be concerned about "preventing" children from coming to Christ, which is exactly what Christ told the apostles not to do.

The only other thing I can see with this argument is that the Church isn't sure, so they do it, just in case. Hence the need for a restoration and prophets who can reveal the will of God on these matters.

Big Dogger, I am interested in your thoughts on my question regarding Hippolytus.

Thanks,

T-Shirt

Share this post


Link to post
Here you seem to be concerned about "preventing" children from coming to Christ, which is exactly what Christ told the apostles not to do.

The only other thing I can see with this argument is that the Church isn't sure, so they do it, just in case. Hence the need for a restoration and prophets who can reveal the will of God on these matters.

T-Shirt,

Please forgive my ignorance here...but don't we both believe that baptism is a requirement for entering into the kingdom of God?

Peace be with you.

Share this post


Link to post
In addition, Hippolytus was often mentioned as a bishop of Rome, but strangely enough he is never mention in the list of Popes. Hippolytus believe that the Father anf the Son were two distinclty different beings, the Son being devine, yet created, or begotten in spirit, by the Father, and was subordinate to the Father. He also taught that man can become as God. So which teachings of Hippolytus do you accept and which ones do you reject?

T-Shirt

Hippolytus of Rome was a martyr, presbyter and antipope. He was a false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to a pontiff canonically elected. There have been a number of claimants of the Holy See and I believe, not exactly sure here, that Hippolytus was infact the first antipope.

Hippolytus was a presbyter of the Church of Rome at the beginning of the third century. There is no difficulty in admitting that he could have been a disciple of St Irenaeus either in Rome or Lyons. It is equally possible that Origen heard a homily by Hippolytus when he went to Rome about the year 212. In the reigh of Pope Zephyrinus (198-217) he came into conflict with that pontiff and with the majority of the Church of Rome, primarily on account of the christological opinions which for some time had been causing controversies in Rome. Hippolytus had combated the heresy of Theodotion and the Alogi; in like fashion he opposed the false doctrines of Noetus, of Epigonus, of Cleomenes, and of Sabellius, who emphasized the unity of God too one-sidedly (Monarchians) and saw in the concepts of the Father and the Son merely manifestations (modi) of the Divine Nature (Modalism, Sabellianism). Hippolytus, on the contrary, stood uncompromisingly for a real difference between the Son (Logos) and the Father, but so as to represent the Former as a Divine Person almost completely separate from God (Ditheism) and at the same time altogether subordinate to the Father (Subordinationism). As the heresy in the doctrine of the Modalists was not at first clearly apparent, Pope Zephyrinus declined to give a decision. For this Hippolytus gravely censured him, representing him as an incompetent man, unworthy to rule the Church of Rome and as a tool in the hands of the ambitious and intriguing deacon Callistus, whose early life is maliciously depicted (Philosophumena, IX, xi-xii). Consequently when Callistus was elected pope (217-218) on the death of Zephyrinus, Hippolytus immediately left the communion of the Roman Church and had himself elected antipope by his small band of followers.

I hope that helps.

Peace be with you.

Share this post


Link to post
In addition, Hippolytus was often mentioned as a bishop of Rome, but strangely enough he is never mention in the list of Popes.  Hippolytus believe that the Father anf the Son were two distinclty different beings, the Son being devine, yet created, or begotten in spirit, by the Father, and was subordinate to the Father.  He also taught that man can become as God.  So which teachings of Hippolytus do you accept and which ones do you reject?

T-Shirt

Hippolytus of Rome was a martyr, presbyter and antipope. He was a false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to a pontiff canonically elected. There have been a number of claimants of the Holy See and I believe, not exactly sure here, that Hippolytus was infact the first antipope.

Hippolytus was a presbyter of the Church of Rome at the beginning of the third century. There is no difficulty in admitting that he could have been a disciple of St Irenaeus either in Rome or Lyons. It is equally possible that Origen heard a homily by Hippolytus when he went to Rome about the year 212. In the reigh of Pope Zephyrinus (198-217) he came into conflict with that pontiff and with the majority of the Church of Rome, primarily on account of the christological opinions which for some time had been causing controversies in Rome. Hippolytus had combated the heresy of Theodotion and the Alogi; in like fashion he opposed the false doctrines of Noetus, of Epigonus, of Cleomenes, and of Sabellius, who emphasized the unity of God too one-sidedly (Monarchians) and saw in the concepts of the Father and the Son merely manifestations (modi) of the Divine Nature (Modalism, Sabellianism). Hippolytus, on the contrary, stood uncompromisingly for a real difference between the Son (Logos) and the Father, but so as to represent the Former as a Divine Person almost completely separate from God (Ditheism) and at the same time altogether subordinate to the Father (Subordinationism). As the heresy in the doctrine of the Modalists was not at first clearly apparent, Pope Zephyrinus declined to give a decision. For this Hippolytus gravely censured him, representing him as an incompetent man, unworthy to rule the Church of Rome and as a tool in the hands of the ambitious and intriguing deacon Callistus, whose early life is maliciously depicted (Philosophumena, IX, xi-xii). Consequently when Callistus was elected pope (217-218) on the death of Zephyrinus, Hippolytus immediately left the communion of the Roman Church and had himself elected antipope by his small band of followers.

I hope that helps.

Peace be with you.

I have read this quote from newadvent.com. J. B. Lightfoot disagrees with the anti-pope theory. I am still interested in your thoughts about evidence of the Roman Bishop being considerd a central authority by the whole church. I see no strong eveidence of this before about AD 570 with Greggory the Great. Prior to this, bishops had local authority only.

Are you aware of the things Hippolytus wrote about Zephyrinus and Callistus?

T-Shirt

Share this post


Link to post
I have read this quote from newadvent.com.  J. B. Lightfoot disagrees with  the anti-pope theory.  I am still interested in your thoughts about evidence of the Roman Bishop being considerd a central authority by the whole church.  I see no strong eveidence of this before about AD 570 with Greggory the Great.  Prior to this, bishops had local authority only. 

Are you aware of the things Hippolytus wrote about Zephyrinus and Callistus?

T-Shirt

For those who are not aware, Zephyrinus and Callistus were the 15th and 16th popes, respectively.

APPEARANCE AT ROME DURING THE EPISCOPATES OF ZEPHYRINUS AND CALLISTUS;

NOETIANISM OPPOSED AT ROME BY HIPPOLYTUS.

There has appeared one, Noetus by name, and by birth a native of Smyrna. This person introduced a heresy from the tenets of Heraclitus. Now a certain man called Epigonus becomes his minister and pupil, and this person during his sojourn at Rome disseminated his godless opinion. But Cleomenes, who had become his disciple, an alien both in way of life and habits from the Church, was wont to corroborate the (Noetian) doctrine. At that time, Zephyrinus imagines that he administers the affairs of the Church --an uninformed and shamefully corrupt man. And he, being persuaded by proffered gain, was accustomed to connive at those who were present for the purpose of becoming disciples of Cleomenes. But (Zephyrinus) himself, being in process of time enticed away, hurried headlong into the same opinions; and he had Callistus as his adviser, and a fellow-champion of these wicked tenets. But the life of this (Callistus), and the heresy invented by him, I shall after a little explain. The school of these heretics during the succession of such bishops, continued to acquire strength and augmentation, from the fact that Zephyrinus and Callistus helped them to prevail. Never at any time, however, have we been guilty of collusion with them; but we have frequently offered them opposition, and have refuted them, and have forced them reluctantly to acknowledge the truth. And they, abashed and constrained by the truth, have confessed their errors for a short period, but after a little, wallow once again in the same mire.

Hippolytus did make these claims during the period that he claimed to be pope. So I think his comments must be taken with a grain of salt.

The fact that Hippolytus was a schismatic Bishop of Rome and yet was held in high honour afterwards both as martyr and theologian, explains why as early as the fourth century nothing was known as to his see, for he was not on the list of the Roman bishops. The theory championed by Lightfoot, that he was actually Bishop of Porto but with his official residence in Rome, is untenable.

Peace be with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Hippolytus did make these claims during the period that he claimed to be pope. So I think his comments must be taken with a grain of salt.

I have not been able to find anything in any of Hippolytus' writings where he claims to be the real bishop of Rome over Callistus. He certainly didn't have much good to say about Callistus, and I don't know if what he said was all accurate or not, but there is a whole lot more to what he said than what you quoted above.

The fact that Hippolytus was a schismatic Bishop of Rome

How do you know that Hippolytus wasn't right and that it was in fact Callistus who was schismatic?

and yet was held in high honour afterwards both as martyr and theologian, explains why as early as the fourth century nothing was known as to his see, for he was not on the list of the Roman bishops.

Other than his disagreement with Callistus, what made him schismatic? Was he ever put down as a heretic? Why was he later so highly revered? Do you accept his doctrine of deification of man and the Son being different from and subordinate to the Father?

The theory championed by Lightfoot, that he was actually Bishop of Porto but with his official residence in Rome, is untenable.

That may be, but that leaves the Catholics the only option of calling Hippolytus as schismatic or heretical, but with no real evidence.

And what about my question regarding the primacy of the Roman bishops?

Thanks for your thoughts.

T-Shirt

Share this post


Link to post

Big Dogger Previously Posted: During the first few centuries of the Church, although infant baptism was generally practiced, no bishop or theologian and no heretic in any way condemned the practice. Today, most Christians practice infant baptism--most Protestants, Orthodox, Monophysites, Nestorians, and Catholics. Only a very vocal minority of Protestants oppose the practice. Therefore the burden of proof is upon these minority dissidents, and it is a crushing burden. They must explain why there is no documentation clearly against infant baptism until well after the 16th century "reformation". If they cannot come up with these proofs over the first 16 centuries of Christian history, then their refusal to baptize their babies is in trouble.

Ken Responds: You account very nicely for Protestants and for Catholics in the above post. Surely, you've posted on here long enough to know that we Mormons do not consider ourselves--indeed, that we are not--members of either of those camps. <_< You ask for pre-16th-century-"reformation" evidence in opposition to infant baptism. I can give you such evidence, but your only option will be to dismiss it as not being what it claims to be. If you choose to do that, that is your right.

You can say that the histories of Catholicism and of Protestantism, fragmentary though they may be, are buttressed with plenty of historical evidence which my source--at least to date--lacks, and you'd be right. In so doing, you would back me up against the Wall of Faith. With a more complete historical record available than that which undergirds the Book of Mormon, from whence my evidence comes, you might not feel a need to make your stand against the Wall of Faith with respect to the evidence undergirding your position. I, however, am not the least bit uncomfortable making my stand against the Wall of Faith, so here is my evidence refuting the practice of infant baptism. Again, you are free to reject it as not being what it claims to be.

Writing ca. 385-421 A.D. (which, I believe, beats your 16th-century "cutoff" by around 1,200 years, give-or-take), the Book of Mormon Prophet, Moroni, had this to say about infant baptism (with apologies for his strong, seemingly-harsh wording):

And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.

But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!

Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.

Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.

For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism....

Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy.

And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption....

For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing

Moroni 8:11-15, 19-20, 22, the Book of Mormon.

To that, let me add this:

And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.

Doctrine & Covenants 68:25, emphasis added.

I realize this posting is technically beside the point of David's initial inquiry. I also realize that he's probably well aware of LDS teaching regarding baptism, and how it differs from that of the Catholic Church. (For that matter, Big Dogger probably is, as well.) My sole point in posting the above is to respond to Big Dogger's plea for a pre-16th-century source condemning infant baptism, which I'm sure he'll reject out-of-hand.

No offense, Big Dogger. My anticipation of your rejection of my "evidence" is merely intended to show what your reaction is likely to be--which, I also realize, technically renders my entire post superfluous. I apologize to those of you who have wasted your time reading it :P, and I hereby repent from posting superfluously. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled, on-topic programming. :ph34r:

As you and David both say, "Grace and Peace..." :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Children that die without baptism does not necessarily forbid them from entering into heaven.

As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

My first thought was, "Then why do you baptise them?" and then you said:

All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Here you seem to be concerned about "preventing" children from coming to Christ, which is exactly what Christ told the apostles not to do.

The only other thing I can see with this argument is that the Church isn't sure, so they do it, just in case. Hence the need for a restoration and prophets who can reveal the will of God on these matters.

Big Dogger, I am interested in your thoughts on my question regarding Hippolytus.

Thanks,

T-Shirt

T-Shirt,

I don't think the Catholic church considers it appropriate to say that any class of people or even any individual is damned to hell, though we know that some people are. We don't say it about unbaptised infants, we don't say it about the members of any particular religion, we don't say it about individual rapists and murderers. We don't say it because we don't know what God will do in an individual case.

What we do know is that baptism is required for salvation and that those who are baptised have received God's grace. We also believe that there are some instances where the principal effects of baptism are bestowed even though a traditional baptism has not occurred (baptism of desire and baptism of fire). We don't know exactly how God handles an individual case outside the Church, but why would we need to know?

My personal belief is that if a person is going through RCIA (the adult course for those who want to become Catholic) and is contrite of heart, but dies the week before his initiation, he's probably received salvific grace through desire. I believe similarly about an infant whose parents intend to have the child baptized and raise it in the Church, but where circumstances make traditional baptism impossible. As a Catholic, I don't worry about my kids because all of my children will be baptised soon after birth, and if circumstances should make it impossible, I believe my children will be in the presence of God anyway. That's all I need to know.

It is also my personal belief that God is just and merciful, but for the record, I do not consider excluding an infant from Heaven to be prima facie unjust or unmerciful.

The people who feel they are lacking information (like you) from the Catholic Church are the people outside the Church, and that information won't be forthcoming because you're outside her realm of authority. For those within, it is clear enough.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think the Catholic church considers it appropriate to say that any class of people or even any individual is damned to hell, though we know that some people are. We don't say it about unbaptised infants, we don't say it about the members of any particular religion, we don't say it about individual rapists and murderers. We don't say it because we don't know what God will do in an individual case.

All due respect Fiat, but is your sentiment isn't shared by all Catholics. To some, we - LDS - are spawns of Satan.

Share this post


Link to post

David and all,

It seems to me the strength gleaned by pointing to Old/New Testament parallels is slightly lost when applying the reading of the New Testament liberally enough that the faith of others is sufficient for pre-baptism faith. But as I said before, I do not think that explanation of faith is a fatal flaw.

The question becomes does the seeming demand that faith proceeds Baptism overwhelm the solid Old/New Testament parallels you draw. There are certainly differences between the practices in the Old and the New Testament. There are certainly many similarities and parallels like this. (I particularly enjoy the Passover supper to Christ/Eucharist parallels). Here is a problem I see with this particular parallel.

The Old Testament was very clear that Baptism was to be on the eighth day. The tradition or ??? from which infant baptism developed did not follow this strict requirement. The eighth day was discussed, but deemed not significant.

I mention this for two reasons. One, it weakens the parallel. If Baptism was the New Testament circumcision then why is there no discussion of the eighth day until about 250AD (I think). Two, where is the pre-250AD linkage to this eighth day practice. Surely if it was a consistent practice from the time of Jesus until 250AD, someone would have noted that it was not necessarily preformed on the eighth day like circumcision. So either it was apostolic tradition not to perform it on the eighth day NECESSARILY or it was only performed on the eighth day and a departure from tradition occurred. In the first instance I think someone would have noticed earlier than 250AD; in the second we have a problem with changing apostolic tradition.

Concerning the linkage of Circumcision and Baptism, this seems to be a later development too.

Briefly back to the article that I quoted from your first link. It said,

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think the Catholic church considers it appropriate to say that any class of people or even any individual is damned to hell, though we know that some people are. We don't say it about unbaptised infants, we don't say it about the members of any particular religion, we don't say it about individual rapists and murderers. We don't say it because we don't know what God will do in an individual case.

All due respect Fiat, but is your sentiment isn't shared by all Catholics. To some, we - LDS - are spawns of Satan.

I won't doubt that you've come across this, just as I've come across LDS that seem to think the same thing of Catholics.

But, in the case of Catholics, if someone has said that you are Satan's spawn, I think that must be somebody's independent thought (and perhaps sin). It's not at all my understanding of what the Church teaches.

Share this post


Link to post

Just a shout out to David Waltz, Whats Up ?, How is that Book on The Trinity comming along ?. Grace To You and Yours.

Share this post


Link to post

Hello Ken,

I do not believe that I have ever had the pleasure of dialoguing with in the past, so, if I misread the intentions and content of your post, please forgive me, and feel free to correct any misunderstandings. You wrote:

>>I realize this posting is technically beside the point of David's initial inquiry. I also realize that he's probably well aware of LDS teaching regarding baptism, and how it differs from that of the Catholic Church.>>

Me: Apart from the issue of the age of the one being baptized, there exists many similarities between what the RCC teaches about baptism, and what the CoJCoLDS teaches. (If you so desire, I can list some of the parallels tomorrow.)

>>(For that matter, Big Dogger probably is, as well.) My sole point in posting the above is to respond to Big Dogger's plea for a pre-16th-century source condemning infant baptism, which I'm sure he'll reject out-of-hand.>>

Me: I aware of a few more pre-16th century sources that can be cited, but, to me, and apparently to Dr. Reynolds, the issue is the early church (1st century).

>>I apologize to those of you who have wasted your time reading it, and I hereby repent from posting superfluously. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled, on-topic programming.>>

Me: I sense you think I have some hidden agenda, but, those who know me would probably argue the contrary

Share this post


Link to post

David, looking forward to your response. How is that Book comming along ? [On The Trinity].

Share this post


Link to post
Hello Ken,

I do not believe that I have ever had the pleasure of dialoguing with in the past, so, if I misread the intentions and content of your post, please forgive me, and feel free to correct any misunderstandings.

Me: I sense you think I have some hidden agenda, but, those who know me would probably argue the contrary

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Tom,

Sorry for not getting back to you earlier, but better late than never! You wrote in your 01-31-05, 05:32 PM post:

>>I think if we could establish that there was never a time that infant baptism was not the practice of the early church, we would prove the restoration was not a restoration. If we could show it as unlikely that infant baptism was not the practice of the early church we would provide a point in the favor of the Catholic Church relative to the CoJCoLDS.>>

Me: I think I understand what you are saying

Share this post


Link to post

David, in Catholicism, what is the purpose of baptism?

Is it a covenant or isn't it?

It doesn't seem that these questions are being resolved. For me the logic of infant baptism should play a big factor in determining its validity. Not whether or not the Fathers argued about it.

Share this post


Link to post

Tanyan, Urroner, and Kevin,

Hi guys

Share this post


Link to post

David,

Thanks for your response. Hope you had a good run. I am of the opinion that I am part of the 99% Urroner speaks of, but I enjoy discussing things with you too.

David:

Question #1: If infant baptism was not a practice of the apostles, why did bishops in apostolic churches begin to baptize children? (Keep in mind the doctrine of

Share this post


Link to post

myth #3: The Roman Catholic church specifically is the great and abominable church spoken of in Nephi

Share this post


Link to post

Ken Previously Posted: I apologize to those of you who have wasted your time reading [my previous post], and I hereby repent from posting superfluously. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled, on-topic programming.

David Waltz Responded: I sense you think I have some hidden agenda, but, those who know me would probably argue the contrary

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...