1st/2nd century church

[juliann]

Me: I think the notion that Catholicism rejected covenantalism is just false; Professor Reynolds is wrong on this IMO.

I don't believe I mentioned "Catholics". Ave Maria always derails the discussion into a debate over Catholicism. As you can see...it is wearing very, very, very thin.

The premise of Dr. Reynolds ties into the covenant people, i.e., the OT. This ties into narratives which require bilateral response to maintain the identification as God's chosen people. This is something LDS would recognize in the temple. It requires a formal, ritual situation where contracts are entered into on an individual level. I do not think we are seeing "covenant" in the same way. Certainly all religions make committments, etc.

[ave maria]

It requires a formal, ritual situation where contracts are entered into on an individual level. I do not think we are seeing "covenant" in the same way.

Are you looking?

Or are you simply taking Noel Reynolds' word for it?

[ave maria]

Go back and review the thread, and you'll find where I addressed the cites you gave regarding baptism for the dead.

Nice diversionary tactic. You have not even mentioned the cites. EVER. All you have done is ask the same "question" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

Oh...and let's not forget the "is NOT" responses.

Try here, on page 12 of this thread:

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showto...ndpost&p=291389

[juliann]

Try here, on page 12 of this thread:

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showto...ndpost&p=291389

I did. It was noted under the "is NOT" response you are so famous for.

[juliann]

It requires a formal, ritual situation where contracts are entered into on an individual level.  I do not think we are seeing "covenant" in the same way.

Are you looking?

Or are you simply taking Noel Reynolds' word for it?

More drive by...."questions! " Oh, what a surprise! Get ready for the "is NOT" response!

[ave maria]

Me: I think the notion that Catholicism rejected covenantalism is just false; Professor Reynolds is wrong on this IMO.

I don't believe I mentioned "Catholics". Ave Maria always derails the discussion into a debate over Catholicism. As you can see...it is wearing very, very, very thin.

Nonsense.

A careful reading of this thread evidences TOm Nossor to be the first to raise the issue of Catholicism, and shift the focus to an LDS/Catholic debate.

[ave maria]

Who is performing baptisms for the dead nowadays?

There are also those in contemporary society who baptize stillborn infants and aborted fetuses as a particular form of baptism for the dead, including this particular chaplain:

The Chaplaincy program works with people from all religious backgrounds as well as those who are not a part of a spiritual tradition. The program offers individual counseling, group counseling and the celebration of spiritual sacraments such as baptism of the still born fetus and blessings for the aborted fetus. The program works with many different religions and is prepared to do, or arrange for, religious services from any spiritual religion.

http://www.drtiller.com/chap.html

[Zakuska]

Hey didn't the Catholic church say that practice was heretical?

Concerning baptism for the dead, a curious and difficult passage in St. Paul's Epistle has given rise to some controversy. The Apostle says: "Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptized for them?" (I Cor., xv, 29), There seems to be no question here of any such absurd custom as conferring baptism on corpses, as was practiced later by some heretical sects. It has been conjectured that this otherwise unknown usage of the Corinthians consisted in some living person receiving a symbolic baptism as representing another who had died with the desire of becoming a Christian, but had been prevented from realizing his wish for baptism by an unforeseen death. Those who give this explanation say that St. Paul merely refers to this custom of the Corinthians as an argumentum ad hominem, when discussing the resurrection of the dead, without approving the usage mentioned,(loc. cit., chap. xv; cf. also Cornely in Ep. I Cor.).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

[ave maria]

Hey didn't the Catholic church say that practice was heretical?

Concerning baptism for the dead, a curious and difficult passage in St. Paul's Epistle has given rise to some controversy. The Apostle says: "Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptized for them?" (I Cor., xv, 29), There seems to be no question here of any such absurd custom as conferring baptism on corpses, as was practiced later by some heretical sects. It has been conjectured that this otherwise unknown usage of the Corinthians consisted in some living person receiving a symbolic baptism as representing another who had died with the desire of becoming a Christian, but had been prevented from realizing his wish for baptism by an unforeseen death. Those who give this explanation say that St. Paul merely refers to this custom of the Corinthians as an argumentum ad hominem, when discussing the resurrection of the dead, without approving the usage mentioned,(loc. cit., chap. xv; cf. also Cornely in Ep. I Cor.).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Yes. Why do you ask?

[Zakuska]

Havent Catholic nurses done the same thing?

I seem to recall someone on one of these boards who almost died at birth and the nurse without asking the parents Baptized him catholic.

[ave maria]

Havent Catholic nurses done the same thing?

I seem to recall someone on one of these boards who almost died at birth and the nurse without asking the parents Baptized him catholic.

Baptism in danger of death is a very different thing from baptism of corpses.

[juliann]

There are also those in contemporary society who baptize stillborn infants and aborted fetuses as a particular form of baptism for the dead, including this particular chaplain:

Just when I thought your non-answers couldnt' get anymore bizarre and irrelevant. Yup. A late abortion clinic advertising some sort of unspecified fetus "baptism" proves that LDS aren't the only ones doing baptism for the dead.

I do have to admit this is rather interesting. You are usually sneering at LDS practices instead of claiming bragging rights.

[ave maria]

I do have to admit this is rather interesting. You are usually sneering at LDS practices instead of claiming bragging rights.

Huh?

You'll have to explain that one, because on its face, it appears to be in the worst of taste and discernment.

[David Waltz]

Hi Johnny,

You posted yesterday:

>>While you were gone I made the following statement to Ave Maria ... what are your thoughts?

For me the multiple interpretations boil down to the number of Gods like the Father ... LDS would say many and Catholics would say one.>>

Me: Some LDS theologians reject the notion that we become independent

[Zakuska]

Havent Catholic nurses done the same thing?

I seem to recall someone on one of these boards who almost died at birth and the nurse without asking the parents Baptized him catholic.

Baptism in danger of death is a very different thing from baptism of corpses.

Who's in danger of death?

Rom 5

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

[3DOP]

Juliann:

Ave Maria always derails the discussion into a debate over Catholicism. As you can see...it is wearing very, very, very thin.

Maybe that is because some LDS apologists would like to establish the legitimacy of LDS claims apart from Catholic answers to the problems they raise.

Hi Juliann,

I have not read this whole thread but have debated you in the past. This response is based on my experience before. I just don't have time to review the whole thing here, and it is possible that your approach to the Church Fathers and Catholic claims has changed. My apologies if your method is now different. I am Rory at ZLMB for your information Juliann.

In my opinion your flaw lies in a simple failure to analyze the possibility that successors of the Apostles actually had a responsibility to denounce the Montanists, Gnostics and other heretics who failed to follow the apostolic order of hierarchical authority, and their teachings. Given a false premise that assumes in the beginning that one voice is as authoritative as the next, you propose that the Valentinians (and others who have no voice today and are therefore no threat to Mormon claims) have just as much truth as St Irenaeus when he unfolds the way a simpleton can identify heresy from the apostolic faith. Catholics will will understandably lose everytime if they find themselves needing to answer for the teachings of those they have labelled heretics. In fairness, Catholics must be allowed to disassociate themselves from those whose teachings they reject, just as Salt Lake Mormons do not have to answer for every splinter group that has rejected the leadership of Brigham Young.

Your method of disallowing Catholics to dismiss heretics by the rule laid down by Irenaeus takes the sword right out of the hand of your only viable opponent in any debates about the first two centuries, the Catholic Church. It is a foundational misunderstanding between you and Catholics which would have to be resolved before any meaningful debate could take place between you and Catholics.

As for any distress about Ave Maria "derailing" the subject into a discussion of her faith, what do you expect? LDS apologists lay out a pretty good argument against Protestant claims. I have said many times that I could sooner be LDS than Protestant. But rejecting the rule of Irenaeus, of identifying the faith with the apostolic churches, especially Rome, the Protestants cannot as easily dismiss early heresy as we can. That is why in my opinion, your analysis is flawed, even if it "works" against Protestant claims. It is not derailing threads to remind Mormons that the Protestants aren't the only game in town.

I will not be able to defend my thesis here. But I leave it to Ave Maria, David, and fair minded Mormons like TOm Nossor to keep an eye out for the problem I have identified in your approach to patristics. I do not mean to say that you are unique among Mormons or that you have sinister designs. I attribute this to a blind spot. If you cannot see it, maybe others can.

3DOP

[juliann]

Me: Some LDS theologians reject the notion that we become independent

[David Waltz]

Hi Tom,

You wrote:

>>There is no evidence for Creation ex Nihilo before the 2nd Century.

Maccabees is not. Hermas is not. And nothing in the Bible (Catholic or Protestant) is either.>>

Me: Explicitly speaking, I would agree with the above; however, I believe that implicit, solid (but not conclusive) evidence exists for the affirmation of creatio ex nihilo in the Bible, and extra-canonical writings of the period between 200BC

[johnny]

David Waltz  writes,

Me: Some LDS theologians reject the notion that we become independent

[Zakuska]

I would agree it is not a diminished divinity ... that is not my point.

My point is, like you stated, " God

[juliann]

I am Rory at ZLMB for your information Juliann. 

 

Rory...so very good to see you here!!

[juliann]

Question: Does theosis begin at baptism (Irenaeus) or the Incarnation (Athanasius)? What is the significance of either position or is it significant?

[Proverbs]

You know I think I missed it. Ave Marie did you say already what other modern Christian churches currently practice baptism for the dead? I saw one where you said a Chaplain was baptizing Fetuses? That seems a stretch to me. Do you have another Modern religion that practices Baptism for the dead as part of it's normal procedures?

And did I read you right? Baptism for the dead IS an early Christian ordinance? And IS practiced by Christians today?

QUOTE (juliann @ Oct 16 2005, 02:35 AM)

I do have to admit this is rather interesting. You are usually sneering at LDS practices instead of claiming bragging rights. 

LOL Julian I was thinking something similiar. While I don't think she's "sneering" her tone about these ordinances is definitely is an interesting turn of events. I for one have no problem with the Catholic church not performing these ordinances, or any other Church. They do not have the authority to perform them.

[ave maria]

(deleted)

[ave maria]

You know I think I missed it.  Ave Marie did you say already what other modern Christian churches currently practice baptism for the dead? I saw one where you said a Chaplain was baptizing Fetuses? That seems a stretch to me.  Do you have another Modern religion that practices Baptism for the dead as part of it's normal procedures?

Strangites. Although they do not believe temples are necessary for the practice, and only baptize direct ancestors and immediate family members.

And did I read you right? Baptism for the dead IS an early Christian ordinance?

No, I am on record stating it was considered a heretical practice by the early Christian church.

And IS practiced by Christians today?

Strangites. At the time of Joseph Smith, it was practiced by the Ephrata Society in Pennsylvania. It is not an approved practice of any mainstream Christian church currently to my knowledge, as none would find approved precedent for it in the early Christian church.

I do have to admit this is rather interesting. You are usually sneering at LDS practices instead of claiming bragging rights. 

LOL Julian I was thinking something similiar. While I don't think she's "sneering" her tone about these ordinances is definitely is an interesting turn of events. I for one have no problem with the Catholic church not performing these ordinances, or any other Church. They do not have the authority to perform them.

That you would even respond to juliann's comment without condemning it is very telling. She is in essence accusing me of approving of a practice of a Unity Church minister (formerly Methodist) "baptizing" the corpses of late-term abortion fetuses.

To suggest such a thing is unconscionable, and comments like that should never be allowed to stand on a message board.

I neither approve of baptisms for the dead in any situation currently, nor in any situation in the past. I do not now, and have never, "sneered" at the practices of any other faith, however, and true to the teachings of my childhood, allow others to practice their own religions freely, and with respect, whether or not I agree with them.

My own opinion is that Latter-day Saint are in error in looking to the early Christian church as an approved source for the practice. That does not mean I personally condemn them for engaging it. I believe at its worst, it is a benign practice.