1st/2nd century church

[ave maria]

Ave,

What are the other Christian Faiths that currently practice Baptism for the dead?

Proverbs--

The Ephrata Society, contemporary with Joseph Smith, certainly practiced it, in Pennsylvania.

juliann's post refers in general to "salvation for the dead," and not specifically to baptism for the dead. The Christian Church has long been concerned with the salvation of the dead, and prayers for the dead, which finds it's support in this verse from Second Maccabees:

"In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the dead to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin"--2 Maccabees 12:43–45 (emphasis mine)

[ave maria]

=rhinomelon,Oct 12 2005, 01:04 PM] Now, to your quotes. As far as baptism/preaching to the dead, as I expected, you were unable to find even five places in which any ECF states that preaching/baptizing the dead is within the realm of possibility for the follower of Christ. You found many about Christ doing it, but since mainstream Christianity has held that belief for two thousand years without your help, that was not unexpected.

I'm not sure how to get this back on track and there is too much for me to read right now. If we get going on deification and baptism for the dead we are going to go all over the place. There have been ample quotes put up regarding deification.

For baptism for the dead, I would look for what it represents. Methods may vary. So we are looking at salvation for the dead. The last I heard, Paul's mention of baptising for the dead has over a hundred different interpretations trying to wiggle out of the plain meaning. The most commonly referred to extrabiblical mention is:

"From Asia and Gaul has reached us the account [tradition] of a certain practice, namely that when any die without baptism among them, they baptize others in their place and in their name, so that, rising in the resurrection, they will not have to pay the penalty of having failed to receive baptism, but rather will become subject to the authority of the Creator of the World. For this reason this tradition which has reached us is said to be the very thing to which the Apostle himself refers when he says, "If the dead rise not at all, what shall they do who are baptized for the dead?" (Epiphanius, Against Heresies I, 28, 6, in PG 41:384-85.)

[Abulafia]

Juliann, I am going to ask you, and I hope it is on topic. (and since this really does seem to be your area of expertise)

How soon do you feel that the church went away from the original teachings of Jesus?

Who do you feel, from the evidence you have looked at, to be the earliest leader of the 'church' after Jesus' death...Was it James or Peter or another?

How far do you think that Paul kept with the original doctrines and message of Jesus? (since disproportionatly it is his outlook that seems to have been preserved past the gospels and into the NT canon)

What do you feel is the best evidence that we have of the 'earliest and most authentic doctrines of Jesus of Nazareth himself'?

Abulafia

[johnny]

juliann  writes, 

You are off-topic again. The discussion is what the ECFs thought...not what you know for certain. It would be greatly appreciated if you would provide something topical and use the names of the early Christians.

Here is "something topical and use the names of the early Christians" related to ex nihilo (see below) or if you want scriptural witness of creation "out of nothing" I would suggest 2 Macc 7:22-21, 28.

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/exnihilo.htm

Ex Nihilo(Creation out of Nothing)

"And as I prayed, the heavens were opened, and I see the woman whom I had desired saluting me from the sky, and saying, 'Hail, Hermas!' And looking up to her, I said, 'Lady, what doest thou here? 'And she answered me, 'I have been taken up here to accuse you of your sins before the Lord.' 'Lady,' said I, 'are you to be the subject of my accusation?' 'No,' said she; 'but hear the words which I am going to speak to you. God, who dwells in the heavens, and made out of nothing the things that exist, and multiplied and increased them on account of His holy Church, is angry with you for having sinned against me."

Hermas,Shepard,1:1:1(A.D. 80),in ANF,II:9

"First Of all, believe that there is one God who created and finished all things, and made all things out of nothing."

Hermas,Shepard,2:1:1(A.D. 80),in ANF,II:20

For, to attribute the substance of created things to the power and will of Him who is God of all, is worthy both of credit and acceptance. It is also agreeable [to reason], and there may be well said regarding such a belief, that 'the things which are impossible with men are possible with God.' While men, indeed, cannot make anything out of nothing, but only out of matter already existing, yet God is in this point proeminently superior to men, that He Himself called into being the substance of His creation, when previously it had no existence."

Irenaeus,Against Heresies,2,10:4(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:370

"And first, they taught us with one consent that God made all things out of nothing; for nothing was coeval with God: but He being His own place, and wanting nothing, and existing before the ages, willed to make man by whom He might be known; for him, therefore, He prepared the world. For he that is created is also needy; but he that is uncreated stands in need of nothing." Theophilus of Antioch,Autolycus,2:10(A.D. 181), in ANF,II:97-98

"[H]e[Hermogenes] takes from Him everything which is God, since he will not have it that He made all things of nothing." Tertullian,Hermogenes,1-2,in ANF,III:477

"Now, with regard to this rule of faith-that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend-it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son."

Tertullian,Prescription Against the Heretics,13:1(A.D. 200),in ANF,III:249

"On the first day God made what He made out of nothing. But on the other days He did not make out of nothing, but out of what He had made on the first day, by moulding it according to His pleasure."

Hippolytus, Six Days Work(Hexameron)(A.D. 217),in ANF,

[johnny]

Abulafia  writes,

How soon do you feel that the church went away from the original teachings of Jesus?

I would be interested to know the date also, especially in relationship to these early church teachings:

First Century

- He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God (Justin Martyr 155AD)

- there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word (Ignatius, Magnesians 8 (105-115AD))

- God created all things, the only God, the only Creator, the only Father, Himself commanding (Irenaeus, 1, ANF, 1:711)

- Our God did not begin to be in time: is without beginning, He is the beginning of all things (Tatian, 4, ANF, 2:118)

- creator creates the creature, being in need of nothing else (Justin's Hortatory Address to the Greeks, 22, ANF, 1:558)

- The Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son (Athenagoras 177 AD)

- No division of substance, but merely an extension. Christ is Spirit of Spirit ... the two are one (Tertullian 197AD)

2nd Century

- A Triad is preached by Scripture, neither Old Testament nor New preaches three Gods (Dionysius 262 AD)

- I do not mean that there are two Gods (Hippolytus 210AD)

- Regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ... it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension (Origen 230AD)

- The Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other (Tertullian 213AD)

- Divinity may be spoken of as one in three persons, the trinity is established, unity is not dissevered (Gregory 270AD)

- For both are one--that is, God (Clement of Alexandria 202AD)

- The Logos is God, being the substance of God (Hippolytus 220AD)

A.D. 110

Real Presence of the flesh in the Bread

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/realp.htm

A.D. 110-165

The bread and wine transubstantiation

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/trans.htm

A.D. 140

Infant Baptism

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/infant.htm

A.D. 98

Apostolic Succession

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/success.htm

A.D. 110

Ordination

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/hlyord.htm

A.D. 160

Purgatory

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/purg.htm

[johnny]

juliann  writes, 

We have already had a discussion on salvation for the dead. Is that exclusive enough for you?

Do you think ordinances for the dead were practiced by the apostles ... if so why weren't they an apostolic tradition carried on by the apostolic church and recorded by the Early Church Fathers?

[TOmNossor]

juliann

[TOmNossor]

Ave Maria,

This creation ex nihilo vs. creation ex materia in my opinion is the granddaddy of difference between LDS beliefs and non-LDS beliefs. I am very Catholic in many of my thoughts, but creation ex materia has far reaching implications throughout my worldview. While I do not believe there is anything particularly necessary for salvation associated with a believe in ex nihilo or ex materia, I think the logical conclusions of these two very different concepts touches upon many aspects of

[johnny]

TOmNossor  writes,

I like it because Hermas is the most explicit teacher that the apostasy is immediately at hand AND a lesser organization will replace the church

I always find it interesting that LDS speak of Hermas teaching "that the apostasy is immediately at hand AND a lesser organization will replace the church" but this is not what Hermas is describing (see text below). What Hermas is teaching is related to the Catholic Doctrine of purgatory.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0201103.htm

"Now the other stones which you saw cast far away from the tower, and falling upon the public road and rolling from it into pathless places, are those who have indeed believed, but through doubt have abandoned the true road. Thinking, then, that they could find a better, they wander and become wretched, and enter upon pathless places. But those which fell into the fire and were burned27 are those who have departed for ever from the living God; nor does the thought of repentance ever come into their hearts, on account of their devotion to their lusts and to the crimes which they committed. Do you wish to know who are the others which fell near the waters, but could not be rolled into them? These are they who have heard the word, and wish to be baptized in the name of the Lord; but when the chastity demanded by the truth comes into their recollection, they draw back,28 and again walk after their own wicked desires." She finished her exposition of the tower. But I, shameless as I yet was, asked her, "Is repentance possible for all those stones which have been cast away and did not fit into the building of the tower, and will they yet have a place in this tower? ""Repentance," said she, "is yet possible, but in this tower they cannot find a suitable place. But in another29 and much inferior place they will be laid, and that, too, only when they have been tortured and completed the days of their sins. And on this account will they be transferred, because they have partaken of the righteous Word.30 And then only will they be removed from their punishments when the thought of repenting of the evil deeds which they have done has come into their hearts. But if it does not come into their hearts, they will not be saved, on account of the hardness of their heart." (Hermas Vision 3:7)

Our faith tradition has embraced creation ex materia and we see it in the early church.

Do you believe that the teachings of Hermas and/or 2 Maccabees describes the LDS teaching of "creation ex materia"?

[ave maria]

Ave Maria,

This creation ex nihilo vs. creation ex materia in my opinion is the granddaddy of difference between LDS beliefs and non-LDS beliefs. I am very Catholic in many of my thoughts, but creation ex materia has far reaching implications throughout my worldview. While I do not believe there is anything particularly necessary for salvation associated with a believe in ex nihilo or ex materia, I think the logical conclusions of these two very different concepts touches upon many aspects of “faith and morals.” God as developed by Aquinas, a concept of God that very few Christians actually embrace, I believe is ALMOST a logical lock-step path from this original error. Many early church conflicts where the church APPEARS to develop away from the earlier LDS-like view to the latter “orthodox” view can be sourced to the acceptance of creation ex nihilo. Many modern controversies I believe are also affected by the concept of creation ex nihilo.

I am not sure what you meant when you said that we can not know if creation ex nihilo is true or false. The 4th Lateran council as I understand it said that to be Catholic you will embrace creation ex nihilo. I think upon this we can hang some pretty firm and simple statements. If God is not one who creates ex nihilo then the charism that guards the deposit of faith in the Catholic Church was not present during the 4th Lateran council (nor one could argue during any council that IMPLICITLY embraced creation ex nihilo, Nicea being the first). There is nothing in history that would suggest the recovery of this charism between Nicea, the 4th Lateran council, Joseph Smith’s day, or the present day; therefore, it is not present in the Catholic Church today. This is apostasy of authority and a restoration is/was needed to authoritatively decide upon matters concerning “faith and morals.”

If there was needed anything in addition to the above, I also maintain that creation ex materia was and is largely uniquely a LDS view and that this is evidence of the restoration of the early church by Joseph Smith. I am aware that process theology has adopted creation ex materia much after Joseph Smith’s day. I am aware of parts or hints of creation ex materia in Joseph Smith’s day, but this would only weaken slightly Joseph’s uniqueness (and I am unaware of anything but the archeologically undiscovered basement library theory that would explain any formative contact). And as Catholics and LDS we recognize authority is important (among other things), “to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant.”

Increasingly my mind hangs upon this creation ex nihilo debate. I am intellectually quite convinced that ex materia is the earlier view and ex nihilo is a 2nd century invention. I am not ready to tell my Catholic friends that the Apostles were so theologically specific that they have ruled out the possibility that they held to creation ex nihilo. As such perhaps some kind of Newman natural revelation enlightened the mind of a 2nd century Gnostic philosopher and then the minds of early Christians through him or in addition to him, but evidence makes the “guardian of tradition” position difficult (and even the Newman seeds that developed problematic). I think the Catholic Church looses this BATTLE by a HUGE margin, and while I acknowledge Catholic victories in other BATTLES, I do not see the margin being overcome. Of course I am a LDS!

Charity, TOm

TOm--

I've already been told I'm off-topic for responding to this topic as raised by others, so I'm not certain I dare respond, without fear of further reprisal.

I will say that yes, it's apparent to me this is one of the biggest personal issues for you theologically, and I respect that, even if I don't share it.

I don't personally sweat the things that leaders assume but cannot theologically prove. As a Catholic, I wouldn't sweat that any more than as a Latter-day Saint I would if I'd been told I had to accept that the Book of Mormon was literally and historically true, and that it was the foundation of my faith (and that to believe otherwise was anathema).

We can certainly look to what we believe are heavenly beings reporting on the status of certain things (whether creation, or a history of a people), but in the end, at some point we have to let go of those concepts that cannot be theologically clarified to a certainty with our limitations.

It matters not to me how God created the heavens and the earth, or out of what; what matters to me is that He did.

My own faith worldview operates on the assumption that Jesus Christ organized His church, and commissioned people to continue it. As a matter of faith in the power of Jesus Christ as God, and the Son of God, I accept that the Church, as a human institution, would endure, stumble, prevail, and encounter growing pains and all the qualities of being precisely human. I do not accept failure of Jesus Christ in His mission to reveal Himself to the world or establish His Church on earth for the salvation of all mankind. I believe He gave Himself quite literally on the cross and in the great gift of the Eucharist, which has continued daily since He instituted it.

If it failed, He was not what He said He was, and any organization of Joseph Smith has no foundation.

I would likewise not trouble significantly over the concept of something being created "out of nothing." Words have traditionally theologically expressed concepts that were difficult for the human mind to wrap itself around, and fall short in the process. What precisely constitutes the nothing being described is certainly debatable (just as not all believe that Adam was literally formed of the "dust" or Eve from a "rib").

Nothing, in my view, can even describe lack of organization.

But none of us do, or can, know for certain with the limitations of our human existence. So I would never hinge my personal belief system on something quite that nebulous. Other things I can find evidentiary support for or against; that one would be quite impossible, and a frustrating undertaking, in my view.

I'm also aware that you're convinced that any "charism" of Peter did not continue; that is a view which I do not share, but which I suspect will again be deemed off-topic for this thread, so I dare not comment on it.

[rhinomelon]

I find it telling that the ECF found schisms deeply abhorant and were deeply troubled by it.

Today people choose church's like grocery stores, and it hardly bothers anyone. 

I appreciate your point of view on this, Programmer, but I'm not sure it's supportable.

There are certainly people of various faiths on record as deeply troubled by the divisions within Christianity.

Indeed, count me as one who can get literally angry at the division of the Church. I think the "church-shopping" phenomenon is more of an American deal, though. We like our choices and freedom. Just walk down the cereal aisle at your local grocery store!

While I can be frustrated at the schisms, I am also heartened by something new that is happening within the Church as a whole. I am seeing a greater concern for unity (not uniformity), especialy among people of Generation X. If you want a couple great books on the subject, try "The Rebirth of Orthodoxy" by Thomas Oden (excellent, amazing book), or "The New Faithful" by Colleen Carroll. And now we have a Pope who is dedicated to Christian unity. I am hopeful.

And the divisions do not mean that I believe the Church is no longer the Church. Zakuska's quote about avoiding schisms is a good one that cuts many to the heart. Of course, Paul also wrote a great deal about sin in general, which plagues the Church and will do so until the second coming of Christ. Failure to live up to the holiness of God (whether in terms of schism or in terms of lying or hating or sexual immorality) is reality, and the New Testament and church history both acknowledge that fact.

And the LDS church has not been spared visits from the "schism bug" either, I remind you.

Anyway, take care, everyone

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor

[TOmNossor]

My own faith worldview operates on the assumption that Jesus Christ organized His church, and commissioned people to continue it.

Which is fine and there is some evidence one can array to support this conclusion. Creation ex nihilo vs Creation ex materia is not part of that evidence.

My own faith worldview operates on the assumption that Jesus Christ organized His church, and commissioned people to continue it.  As a matter of faith in the power of Jesus Christ as God, and the Son of God, I accept that the Church, as a human institution, would endure, stumble, prevail, and encounter growing pains and all the qualities of being precisely human.

PREVAIL is the key word. The pre-restoration apostolic church did not fail in that it did just what it need to do, but it did not contain the Peterine authority. The fullness PREVAILED when Joseph Smith restored the Peterine authority to the earth.

I do not accept failure of Jesus Christ in His mission to reveal Himself to the world or establish His Church on earth for the salvation of all mankind. 

[ave maria]

The above verbiage makes me tired. In the screwtape letters we learn the way to make people embrace the evil is to make is sound like it is actually good. The way to make people reject the restoration is to make it sound like it relies on Christ’s failure.

I know exactly what you mean.

The way people persuade to accept the restoration is by arguing that Christ's Church failed.

I feel the same way about that position that you do about the other. In order to accept the restoration, we must accept a "Great Apostasy" of Christ's church, we must make the Body of Christ into a Whore of Babylon, we must make those who followed the apostles invalidly ordained, we must make the early Christians "reject the truth," we must make Constantine into a bad guy, etc. etc.

[Zakuska]

Come on Ave... he did sport a pentagram.

[TOmNossor]

The above verbiage makes me tired.

[juliann]

How soon do you feel that the church went away from the original teachings of Jesus? 

Good question...and one that can never really be answered because there is a black hole of information in the 1st and 2nd centuries. We then have self-appointed theologians such as Origen (185-251) trying to pull it all together from what they have "been told". He was the first to develop a systematic theology where others had mainly railed against "heretics". I find the opening of his book, On First Principles to be horrifying in its implications.

Many of those, however, who profess to believe in Christ hold conflicting opinions not only on small and trivial questions but also on some that are great and important; on the nature, for instance, of God or of the Lord Jesus Christ or of the Holy Spirit, and in addition on the natures of those created beings, the dominions and the holy powers.

[juliann]

The above verbiage makes me tired. In the screwtape letters we learn the way to make people embrace the evil is to make is sound like it is actually good. The way to make people reject the restoration is to make it sound like it relies on Christ

[Zakuska]

The Romans had picked the key players off...there was no one left to ordain a bishop.

To kill a snake cut off its head?!

[juliann]

In order to accept the restoration, we must accept a "Great Apostasy" of Christ's church, we must make the Body of Christ into a Whore of Babylon, we must make those who followed the apostles invalidly ordained, we must make the early Christians "reject the truth," we must make Constantine into a bad guy, etc. etc.

More unadulterated and nonresponsive baloney. And how fascinating that you would think Constantine has to be a good or a bad guy instead of a historical guy. The Whore of Babylon thing was a nice piece of inflammatory nonsense to heat up the place.

Not one shred of evidence for your shrill accusations....but at least you mentioned a name!

[juliann]

Do you think ordinances for the dead were practiced by the apostles ... if so why weren't they an apostolic tradition carried on by the apostolic church and recorded by the Early Church Fathers?

For starters, there is no such thing as "apostolic tradition". It is a nicely turned phrase to lend an air of authority to whatever is going on now. As to why you think ECFs should have "recorded" everything....and that we would be in possession of everything they did "record"...you will have to explain that one to me. You completely ignored what was put up so I don't see any point in playing 20 Questions with you.

I gave cites for methods and practices of salvation for the dead. I suggest you guys start responding to that or drop it.

[Zakuska]

Juliann,

As to why you think ECFs should have "recorded" everything....and that we would be in possession of everything they did "record"...you will have to explain that one to me.

That made me stop and go huh? too... Where not a lot of Books burned when such and such where latter named heretics?

Heck heres an example...

Acts 19: 19

19 Many of them also which used curious aarts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.

[Programmer]

...

Indeed, count me as one who can get literally angry at the division of the Church. I think the "church-shopping" phenomenon is more of an American deal, though. We like our choices and freedom. Just walk down the cereal aisle at your local grocery store!

While I can be frustrated at the schisms, I am also heartened by something new that is happening within the Church as a whole. I am seeing a greater concern for unity (not uniformity), especialy among people of Generation X. If you want a couple great books on the subject, try "The Rebirth of Orthodoxy" by Thomas Oden (excellent, amazing book), or "The New Faithful" by Colleen Carroll. And now we have a Pope who is dedicated to Christian unity. I am hopeful.

And the divisions do not mean that I believe the Church is no longer the Church. Zakuska's quote about avoiding schisms is a good one that cuts many to the heart. Of course, Paul also wrote a great deal about sin in general, which plagues the Church and will do so until the second coming of Christ. Failure to live up to the holiness of God (whether in terms of schism or in terms of lying or hating or sexual immorality) is reality, and the New Testament and church history both acknowledge that fact.

And the LDS church has not been spared visits from the "schism bug" either, I remind you.

Anyway, take care, everyone

Good post.

LOL, that's why I qualified my statement about the schisms from the LDS church within the last 100 years.

[Zakuska]

Whats intresting is we have examples of Shcisms when the Savior himself taught.

How many times Did Christ teach something and the whole congregation got up and left? Seems to me he wasn't all that Charismatic. He couldn't get the audience rolling like Mr Hinn or the Crouches can.

[juliann]

And the LDS church has not been spared visits from the "schism bug" either, I remind you.

Of course. But where we differ on this is that we do not acknowlege the schisms as legitimate. We have no concept of "the body of Christ" that can include all sorts of denominations. That is what annoys so many...the insistence we are it..the one.