Nicene Creed

[johnny]

Smith,

Which Apostolic Church would that be? Old Apostolic or New Apostolic?

In the world today only one Church that can fill the bill of Apostolic Church and that Church is the Catholic Church, with its center in Rome. Only the Church at Rome can prove her claim to be the only one true Apostolic Church. The organization of Church of Christ has been preserved and its ministry continues in the Church at Rome.

The Church did not entirely disappear with the deaths of the Twelve Apostles. The apostolic foundation continued (as history shows) in the primacy of the Roman Church and its bishops. The apostles were the founders of the Church, they laid the foundation of the Church. The Apostolate was an only temporary form of the episcopate; it was superseded by an ordinary and permanent hierarchy as soon as its constitutional work was done. The office of the pope continues the functions of the Apostolate, of building up and extending the Church. Bishops receive the power of order and jurisdiction through the channel of other bishops, it is the same as the Apostle. After Peter died the Apostle John was busy ordaining bishops not other apostles.

The Apostles established successors to govern the churches. The fact is indisputable: the Bishops of Rome took over Peter's Chair and Peter's office of continuing the work of Christ. The Apostolic Church must be presided over by bishops, they derive their ministry and their governing power from the Apostles. Apostolic succession as an uninterrupted substitution of persons in the place of the Apostles. The authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession. Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power.

There is no other Church linked to the Apostle Peter by an unbroken chain of successors. Apostolicity is not found in the Mormon Church, the beginnings of the Mormon Church come after the time of Christ and the Apostles. The Mormon Church cannot give power which it does not possess. Apostolicity is the surest indication of the true Church of Christ. Apostolicity is the mark by which the Church of today is recognized as identical with the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles. The history of the Catholic Church is an evident proof of its Apostolicity, for no break can be shown in the line of succession. The Catholic Church of today is one with the Church of the Apostles in origin, doctrine, and mission.

History bears complete testimony that the Roman See has been the supreme headship from the very earliest times. Before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of the Apostle Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. The writings of Early Church Fathers are evidence of belief in the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. Irenaeus who was a disciple of John the apostle wrote in his most famous work called Adversus Haereses that:

"In every church, all who wish to know the truth may study the traditions of the apostles that is known all over the world. In fact, we can tell you the names of those who were appointed bishops in the [various] churches by the apostles and trace their successors to our own times...And because the apostles were committing the government of the Church into their hands, they wanted these men, who were to take their places, to be perfect and blameless in every way."

Elsewhere he wrote, "One should obey the presbyters who are the successors of the apostles....We should follow those who preserve the doctrine of the apostles and who are qualified, with the order of the priesthood, to instruct and correct others privately and publicly."

[Lightbearer]

Smith,

In the world today only one Church that can fill the bill of Apostolic Church and that Church is the Catholic Church, with its center in Rome. Only the Church at Rome can prove her claim to be the only one true Apostolic Church. The organization of Church of Christ has been preserved and its ministry continues in the Church at Rome.

The Church did not entirely disappear with the deaths of the Twelve Apostles. The apostolic foundation continued (as history shows) in the primacy of the Roman Church and its bishops. The apostles were the founders of the Church, they laid the foundation of the Church. The Apostolate was an only temporary form of the episcopate; it was superseded by an ordinary and permanent hierarchy as soon as its constitutional work was done. The office of the pope continues the functions of the Apostolate, of building up and extending the Church. Bishops receive the power of order and jurisdiction through the channel of other bishops, it is the same as the Apostle. After Peter died the Apostle John was busy ordaining bishops not other apostles.

The original Church of Christ in New Testament times was organized with Prophets and Apostles not with Popes or Bishops. (Ephesians 2:20 "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.") What happens to a building if the foundation is removed? That is what happened to the ancient Church, without Apostles and Prophets and continued revelation the authority was lost. Bishops had only local authority and could not make rules for the entire Church. If Apostles as leaders of the Church was a temporary situation then why were other Apostles called? Who was the head of the Church after Peter died? Not the Bishop of Rome, I think John the Apostle was busy on the Isle of Patmos recieving The Book of Revelation for the entire Church and he was sending it to the Bishops of the seven Churches in Asia which by all accounts the only ones still in good standing, that had not fell into total apostacy.

The Apostles established successors to govern the churches. The fact is indisputable: the Bishops of Rome took over Peter's Chair and Peter's office of continuing the work of Christ. The Apostolic Church must be presided over by bishops, they derive their ministry and their governing power from the Apostles. Apostolic succession as an uninterrupted substitution of persons in the place of the Apostles. The authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession. Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power.

The so-called fact is very disputable these Bishops of Rome had no authority to preside over the entire Church that is apparent from the split in the Church that continues to this day in the form of the Orthodox Church. There were no transmission of the "keys of the Kingdom" because no Bishops or Popes had any such authority. Bishops had autority to minister to their congregations but not authority to lead the entire Church this was vested in the Apostles. That is why the Apostles wrote epistles to the various Churches to keep them in the right path.

There is no other Church linked to the Apostle Peter by an unbroken chain of successors. Apostolicity is not found in the Mormon Church, the beginnings of the Mormon Church come after the time of Christ and the Apostles. The Mormon Church cannot give power which it does not possess. Apostolicity is the surest indication of the true Church of Christ. Apostolicity is the mark by which the Church of today is recognized as identical with the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles. The history of the Catholic Church is an evident proof of its Apostolicity, for no break can be shown in the line of succession. The Catholic Church of today is one with the Church of the Apostles in origin, doctrine, and mission.

I must disagree there is such a Church, in fact the Apostles Peter, James, and John gave Joseph Smith Jr. this authority in 1829 as angelic ministrants. Each Priesthood holder in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can trace his authority back to Peter, James, and John and ultimatly to Jesus Christ Himself.

History bears complete testimony that the Roman See has been the supreme headship from the very earliest times. Before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of the Apostle Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. The writings of Early Church Fathers are evidence of belief in the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. Irenaeus who was a disciple of John the apostle wrote in his most famous work called Adversus Haereses that:

"In every church, all who wish to know the truth may study the traditions of the apostles that is known all over the world. In fact, we can tell you the names of those who were appointed bishops in the [various] churches by the apostles and trace their successors to our own times...And because the apostles were committing the government of the Church into their hands, they wanted these men, who were to take their places, to be perfect and blameless in every way."

Elsewhere he wrote, "One should obey the presbyters who are the successors of the apostles....We should follow those who preserve the doctrine of the apostles and who are qualified, with the order of the priesthood, to instruct and correct others privately and publicly."

This is not true, there is no "complete testimony" from history. The Bishop of Rome was usurping authority he did not have. Just because this Bishop was over the largest and most influential city of the time did not give him the right to dictate to Bishops in smaller cities. These "Early Church Fathers" were nothing more than "apologists" for the Church in Rome. In fact the Protestant Reformation is a testimony that the Church had lost it's way. Unfortunatly the reformers had no authority to re-establish the Church, that is why the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was necessary.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I find it compelling that the actual nature of God Himself wasn't understood or agreed upon by the major leaders of the Church at that time. Why the subject was even up for debate among the hierarchy, leadership of the church in general, not the average Christian, speaks volumes about the state of Christianity at that time. You'd think the nature of God [the fact that Jesus was a resrrected being who could eat, touch, feel,] would be well understood by the highest in the Church. Unfortunately, the creeds of men had snuck in. The greek philosophy, the school of alexandria had taken over, the truth of God was lost, there was a "falling away," an "apostacy," and the famine of hearing the word of God was spreading through the land.

[rhinomelon]

You'd think the nature of God [the fact that Jesus was a resrrected being who could eat, touch, feel,] would be well understood by the highest in the Church. Unfortunately, the creeds of men had snuck in.

Actually, the fact that Christ was a resurrected being was never really much of a debate. But boiling it down to something so simplistic does not do justice to the biblical testimony on the subject. There were very real issues that arose from studying the biblical text and the apostolic testimony. For instance, certain passages speaking of the Word taking on flesh in Christ, or God being in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, or Christ laying aside equality with God in order to take on the form or nature of humanity. Not to mention the biblical references regarding the nature of God Himself, or the fact that the Bible explicitly endorses monotheism on the one hand, and yet refers to the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as God on the other.

LDS get around that issue by ditching monotheism altogether, but the early church (arising from a Jewish context as it did) considered monotheism a non-negotiable issue. Many errors actually arose because it was so non-negotiable that it led to various conceptions of Christ that attenuated his nature and place within the Christian worldview. Tritheism was never the temptation for the early church that modalism (monotheism at the expense of the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit) was.

Take care, everyone

[LifeOnaPlate]

Actually, the fact that Christ was a resurrected being was never really much of a debate. But boiling it down to something so simplistic does not do justice to the biblical testimony on the subject. There were very real issues that arose from studying the biblical text and the apostolic testimony. For instance, certain passages speaking of the Word taking on flesh in Christ, or God being in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, or Christ laying aside equality with God in order to take on the form or nature of humanity. Not to mention the biblical references regarding the nature of God Himself, or the fact that the Bible explicitly endorses monotheism on the one hand, and yet refers to the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as God on the other.

LDS get around that issue by ditching monotheism altogether, but the early church (arising from a Jewish context as it did) considered monotheism a non-negotiable issue. Many errors actually arose because it was so non-negotiable that it led to various conceptions of Christ that attenuated his nature and place within the Christian worldview. Tritheism was never the temptation for the early church that modalism (monotheism at the expense of the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit) was.

Take care, everyone

Laying tradition and scripture aside; it is compelling the leaders at that time admittedly did not know whether God was 1 or 3.

[Smith]

Smith,

In the world today only one Church that can fill the bill of Apostolic Church and that Church is the Catholic Church, with its center in Rome. Only the Church at Rome can prove her claim to be the only one true Apostolic Church.

That's rich. You don't have apostles, you can't be apostolic. Your succession claims are wishful thinking at best. Agrandizing a Bishop into a Pope, does not an Apostle make, nevermind a quorum of 12. Even right at the start of the so-called line of succession you claim you have a problem assuming that a Bishop in Rome has superiority over a living Apostle (John). Maybe you should think of another name to Describe your Church, apostolic doesn't fit.

[Thinking]

I find it compelling that the actual nature of God Himself wasn't understood or agreed upon by the major leaders of the Church at that time. Why the subject was even up for debate among the hierarchy, leadership of the church in general, not the average Christian, speaks volumes about the state of Christianity at that time. You'd think the nature of God [the fact that Jesus was a resrrected being who could eat, touch, feel,] would be well understood by the highest in the Church. Unfortunately, the creeds of men had snuck in. The greek philosophy, the school of alexandria had taken over, the truth of God was lost, there was a "falling away," an "apostacy," and the famine of hearing the word of God was spreading through the land.

The LDS Church has changed its "doctrine" on the nature of God. Read the 1835 D&C.

Lectures on Faith 5:2

There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things...They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man...

[Doctor Steuss]

Breaking Down Barriers With Wrecking Balls of Fallacy

Edited to add: If typos annoy you, and stand out like giant pimples when you read; donâ??t read this article (unless of course theyâ??ve updated it since I read it).

[rhinomelon]

Laying tradition and scripture aside; it is compelling the leaders at that time admittedly did not know whether God was 1 or 3.

Well, if you lay scripture and tradition aside, what's the point? Where else are you going to go? Also, I would modify your second statement: The leaders of the time (which time?) knew that God was one and that God was also three, but did not know how this could be. They wanted to remain faithful to the apostolic witness, instead of jettisoning one aspect or the other because it made them think too hard.

Take care, everyone

[LifeOnaPlate]

The LDS Church has changed its "doctrine" on the nature of God. Read the 1835 D&C.

Lectures on Faith 5:2

The Lectures on Faith weren't written by Joseph Smith.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well, if you lay scripture and tradition aside, what's the point? Where else are you going to go? Also, I would modify your second statement: The leaders of the time (which time?) knew that God was one and that God was also three, but did not know how this could be. They wanted to remain faithful to the apostolic witness, instead of jettisoning one aspect or the other because it made them think too hard.

Take care, everyone

Where else are you going to go? Straight to God, I say. Modern revelation.

The people involved in the Nicene Creed didn't understand the core difference between Christ and God the Father. This was a few centuries after Christ was physically among his Apostles; these leaders' supposed forerunners. How did their explicit eyewitness and testimony get distorted to the point that among them there was argument over it? That's my point. Do you believe the Nicene creed accurately represents God?

[Thinking]

The Lectures on Faith weren't written by Joseph Smith.

To the members of the church of the Latter Day Saints--Dear Brethren: We deem it to be unnecessary to entertain you with a lengthy preface to the following volume, but merely to say, that it contains in short, the leading items of the religion which we have professed to believe. The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation, we have arranged them into the following work...

JOSEPH SMITH jr.

OLIVER COWDERY.

SIDNEY RIGDON.

F. G. WILLIAMS.

Kirtland, Ohio, February 17, 1835.

[Doctor Steuss]

The Lectures on Faith weren't written by Joseph Smith.

Although some recent authorship studies purport to show that Sidney Rigdon was the main contributor, Willard Richards' history seems to make it evident that Joseph was closely involved.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Can anyone show me where the LoF were deemed as revelation?

[maklelan]

LDS get around that issue by ditching monotheism altogether, but the early church (arising from a Jewish context as it did) considered monotheism a non-negotiable issue.

Actually the monotheistic context in which the creeds developed was based on Greek philosophy's monotheism, driven mostly by Xenophanes' definition:

"If God is the mightiest, He must be One; for were He two or more, He would not have dominion over the others, but, not having dominion over the others, He could not be God. Thus were there several, they would be relatively more powerful or weaker, and thus they would not be gods, for Godâ??s nature is to have nothing mightier than He."

Judaism had a malleable sense of monotheism that never quite reached the rigidity of the Greek perception. Other gods are mentioned throughout the Bible, and not always in a derogatory manner. Some try to dilute the Hebrew Bible's mention of other gods by saying the word can mean judge and so on, but Christ provides us with a Greek word in place of the Hebrew in a context that is unmistakable (John 10:34), and of the Greek there can also be no mistake: other gods exist. Your statement isn't entirely accurate.

Many errors actually arose because it was so non-negotiable that it led to various conceptions of Christ that attenuated his nature and place within the Christian worldview. Tritheism was never the temptation for the early church that modalism (monotheism at the expense of the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit) was.

This was the result of trying to reconcile Greek philosophy with the scriptures, which is why Greek philosophy ultimately effected the reconciliation with a Stoic and Neoplatonic designation: "The Hypostatic Union." Kinda funny that the rationalization that cured the largest orthodoxic battle Christianity has ever fought is a pagan doctrine that doesn't really mean anything at all.

[rhinomelon]

Where else are you going to go? Straight to God, I say. Modern revelation.

Mainstream Christianity as a whole believes that God does indeed reveal Himself through Scripture and tradition. I don't expect you to believe that, but perhaps this would explain why I find it difficult to take LDS claims about the nature of God more seriously. Also, as the quote from the Lectures on Faith demonstrates, "modern revelation" has the same difficulties as ancient revelation; they're just more recent difficulties.

The people involved in the Nicene Creed didn't understand the core difference between Christ and God the Father.

What difference is that, in your opinion?

Actually, you may be on to something there, but not what you think. Many faithful Christians had problems with the Nicene Creed when it first came out, because it seemed to some to blur the distinction between the Father and the Son too much, leading to modalism (a heresy that they were always fighting in some form or another). This is due in part to the language barrier between Greek and Latin; some of the key terms could be translated from the Latin into the Greek in such a way as to cause unnecessary confusion. However, over time, Athanasius and others were able to sort out the differences to the satisfaction of both Greek and Latin Christians, and the Nicene Creed is now accepted by all mainstream Christians across the board.

This was a few centuries after Christ was physically among his Apostles; these leaders' supposed forerunners. How did their explicit eyewitness and testimony get distorted to the point that among them there was argument over it? That's my point. Do you believe the Nicene creed accurately represents God?

The eyewitness testimony was not at issue; that was laid down in stone centuries before Nicea. The Apostles Creed, for example, was basically a statement of the eyewitness events of Christ. The issues at Nicea were deeper than the eyewitness accounts. It's not like one can simply witness the ministry of Christ and suddenly understand everything about God, or about the relationship of God to man through Christ. These issues were progressively dealt with later on, in the writings and teachings of the apostles, and then in their successors and churches they left behind.

As far as the Nicene Creed goes, I believe it to be an accurate representation, as far as it goes. For an analogy, it's like comparing a charcoal drawing of a tree to the tree itself; it gets some things quite right, and other things it can't ever accurately convey (three dimensions, colors, the experience of climbing a tree, etc). But to continue the same analogy a bit, the LDS conception(s) of God seem to me like a charcoal drawing of a bicycle being compared to a tree. The Nicene Creed is a much better representation, and represents a faithful attempt to get a handle on the whole of the biblical witness. The LDS church almost seemed to ditch any such attempt, and skipped directly to their own conclusions, then tried to go back and make ancient scripture fit their modern invention.

And I mean no offense in what I write here, just comparing the two worldviews here. Take care, everyone

[Lightbearer]

The LDS Church has changed its "doctrine" on the nature of God. Read the 1835 D&C.

Lectures on Faith 5:2

If you read the entire passage instead of just a pull quote to try to prove a false conclusion I think you can see there is not any doctrinal change:

(Lectures on Faith, Lecture 5, Pg.48 - Pg.49)

"1.In our former lectures we treated of the being, character, perfections, and attributes, of God. What we mean by perfections is, the perfections which belong to all the attributes of His nature. We shall, in this lecture, speak of the Godhead -- we mean the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

2.There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things, by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible, whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space. They are the Father and the Son -- the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness, the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made of fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or rather man was formed after His likeness and in His image; He is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father, possessing all the fullness of the Father, or the same fullness with the Father; being begotten of Him, and ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who would believe on His name, and is called the Son because of the flesh, and descended in suffering below that which man can suffer; or, in other word, suffered greater sufferings, and was exposed to more powerful contradictions than any man can be. But, notwithstanding all this, He kept the law of God, and remained without sin, showing thereby that it is in the power of man to keep the law and remain also without sin; and also, that by Him a righteous judgment might come upon all flesh, and that all who walk not in the law of God may justly be condemned by the law, and have no excuse for their sins. And He being the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fullness of the glory of the Father, possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one; or, in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things; by whom all things were created and made that were created and made, and these three constitute the Godhead, and are one; the Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power, and fullness -- filling all in all; the Son being filled with the fullness of the mind, glory, and power; or, in other words, the spirit, glory, and power, of the Father, possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom, sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father, mediator for man, being filled with the fullness of the mind of the Father; or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father, which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on His name and keep His commandments; and all those who keep His commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of Him who fills all in all; being filled with the fullness of His glory, and become one in Him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one.

3.From the foregoing account of the Godhead, which is given in His revelations, the saints have a sure foundation laid for the exercise of faith unto life and salvation, through the atonement and mediation of Jesus Christ; by whose blood they have a forgiveness of sins, and also a sure reward laid up for them in heaven, even that of partaking of the fullness of the Father and the Son through the Spirit. As the Son partakes of the fullness of the Father through the Spirit, so the saints are, by the same Spirit, to be partakers of the same fullness, to enjoy the same glory; for as the Father and the Son are one, so, in like manner, the saints are to be one in them. Through the love of the Father, the mediation of Jesus Christ, and the gift of the Holy Spirit, they are to be heirs of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ."

The Lectures on Faith are not part of the Standard Works of the Church. The following is:

(D&C 130:22)"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us."

The revelation in section 130 does not change the doctrine of the Godhead it clarifies it.

[Smith]

Can anyone show me where the LoF were deemed as revelation?

No. Because they weren't. But then maybe that was your point...

[Thinking]

The Lectures on Faith are not part of the Standard Works of the Church.

You just made my point. The Lectures on Faith used to be part of the Standard Works until 1921. Then they were taken out.

[johnny]

An "apostle" is one sent forth. Jesus was an apostle. Paul and Barnabus were apostles. Paul and Barnabus were inferior disciples who were under the direction of the twelve Apostles, in Acts 15 these "apostles" went to the twelve apostles at Jerusalem to settle a dispute. The twelve apostles are the founders of the Church, they laid the foundation of the Church. The RCC is an apostolic church because she is built on a lasting foundation of apostles (Eph 2:20), she has ministers who have the spiritual gift of apostleship (1Cor 12:28).

A "prophet" is a spiritual person. In the New Testament prophets are secondary. Prophets are subject to other prophets. Prophets like Judas and Silas exhorted members of the church with the words that came from the Jerusalem council. Like the prophets in Acts 15, the RCC has a prophetic office that proclaims and edifies the body of Christ (Eph 4:11,12). The gift of private prophecy exists in the RCC, the prophetic spirit did not disappear with the Apostolic times.

After Peter died his successor was the Bishop of Rome, he was the head of the church. While the apostle John was alive the church at Corinth called on the Bishop of Rome to settle a dispute instead of the living apostle John. While the apostle John was alive the Bishop of Rome spoke for God with authority to settle a dispute. Bishops were meant to succeed the apostles, after Peter died the Apostle John was busy ordaining bishops not other apostles.

The Bishop of Rome has apostolic authority to lead and govern the entire church. Before the death of Peter, the Bishop of Rome was ordained by a living apostle. After the death of Peter, the head Bishop of Rome received the "keys of the kingdom" from Christ himself. The "keys of the kingdom" are not handed on by one person to another person through the laying on of hands, the head of the Church gets them from Jesus Christ just like Peter received "the keys" from Christ himself.

Joseph Smith could not have received the apostolic authority from the apostle Peter. Ordination confers authority. Ordination requires the physical laying on of hands. After Peter died he has a spirit body, his spirit body won't be united with his physical body till the second coming of Jesus. If Peter does not have physical hands then he could not have laid hands on Joseph Smith to confer authority.

The Church at Rome did fall NOT into apostasy. The Church at Rome is "the the pillar and ground of the truth" which holds fast to "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (1Tim 3:15; Jude 1:3). The RCC has bishops that hold fast to the faithful word as it has been taught (Titus 1:7-9) and continues in the things which it has learned and has been assured of (2Tim 3:1,14). The RCC stands fast and holds to the traditions which it has been taught, whether by word, or by epistle (2Thes 2:15). Though the storm rages and every wind of doctrine blows against it, the Church of Rome will not fall.

The New Testament foretells of churches that will depart from the indestructible church built on Peter, it says that "in latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils" (1Tim 4:1). The New Testament also tells us that "many false prophets shall rise, they shall deceive many" (Matt 24:11). These false prophets will "come to you in sheep's clothing" and they "shall show great signs and wonders, they shall deceive the very elect" (Matt 7:14; Matt 24:24).

The New Testament reveals that there will false prophets and false teachers that shall bring damnable heresies (2Pet 2:1). The Church of the New Testament settled disputes and clarifies by calling a council (Acts 15). Like the New Testament Church, the RCC calls council settle a disputes. The council clarifies her apostolic faith, deepens her own understanding of the faith, and defends it against errors. The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the living teaching office of the RCC. Even though revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for the Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries. Development of doctrine defines, sharpens, and interprets the deposit of faith. The RCC has final authority to settle disputes between Christians. The RCC was appointed to speak for God. The Spirit of truth guides the council to all truths.

A creed summarizes of the principal truths of the faith that Christians profess. From the beginning, the apostolic Church expressed and handed on her faith in brief formulae normative for all. This summary of faith encompasses in a few words the whole knowledge of the true religion contained in the Old and the New Testaments. Through the centuries many articles of faith have been articulated in response to the needs of the different eras. This article of faith is a summary of the principal truths of the faith and serves as the first and fundamental point of reference. The Apostles' Creed is so called because it is rightly considered to be a faithful summary of the apostles' faith.

Peter tells us that the Bibleâ??s meaning is not always clear (2Pet 3:16). All revealed truths are not contained in the Bible; neither is every truth in the Bible revealed. It takes the authority of the successors of the apostles to formulate the doctrines of the faith properly. In order to articulate some doctrines the RCC uses terminology not found in the Bible to define and explain an essential Christian doctrine. Closure to public revelation doesnâ??t mean there isnâ??t progress in the understanding of what has been entrusted to the Church. Central doctrines were not always understood or as clearly expounded in the Churchâ??s early days as the way they are now. Understanding grows and deepens over time.

The RCC proclaims the truth because there is a famine on earth for hearing the word of the LORD. The Father's self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the RCC: God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the RCC. With the help of the Holy Spirit the RCC guards the apostolic faith. The RCC is the pillar and bulwark of the truth which faithfully guards the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. The bishop of Rome and the bishops are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ. Divine assistance is given to the successors of the apostles when they propose a teaching that leads to better understanding. Divine Revelation clarifies and gives us the certainty of faith.

Edited to add the NOT ...

[Lightbearer]

You just made my point. The Lectures on Faith used to be part of the Standard Works until 1921. Then they were taken out.

So what? My point is the doctrine taught in Lectures on Faith and the doctrine of the Godhead in the 130 section are the same. The Father and the Son are seperate individuals and have glorified bodies of flesh and bone, the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit. So what is your point? The way you quoted it made it appear that the Church believed in only two members of the Godhead. The rest of the quote in Lectures on Faith proves otherwise.

[Smith]

After Peter died his successor was the Bishop of Rome, he was the head of the church.

On what basis? Peter's say so? Lets see some evidence?

The Bishop of Rome has apostolic authority to lead and govern the entire church.

On what basis? His own say so? So why should that be taken seriously?

The Church at Rome did fall into apostasy.

That's about the only correct thing you said in the whole post...

[Thinking]

So what? My point is the doctrine taught in Lectures on Faith and the doctrine of the Godhead in the 130 section are the same. The Father and the Son are seperate individuals and have glorified bodies of flesh and bone, the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit. So what is your point? The way you quoted it made it appear that the Church believed in only two members of the Godhead. The rest of the quote in Lectures on Faith proves otherwise.

You told me I stopped prematurely. Well if you continue to the question & answer section you would read the following:

Q. How many personges are there in the Godhead?

A. Two: the Father and the Son.

...

Q. What is the Father?

A. He is a personage of glory and of power.

...

Q. What is the Son?

A. First, he is a personage of tabernacle.

...

Q. Do the Father and the Son possess the same mind?

A. They do...

Q. What is this mind?

A. The Holy Spirit...

Q. Do the Father, Son and Holy Spirit constitute the Godhead?

A. They do...

Originally, the Holy Spirit was not considered a personage, but the "mind" of God, and only the Son was said to be a "personage of tabernacle." Spiritually, the Son was in the "express image" of the Father, and physically He was in the "form and likeness" of man.

...the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness, the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made of fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or rather man was formed after His likeness and in His image; He is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father...

If they believed that the Father was a personage of tabernacle, why the two comparisons?

[Lightbearer]

An "apostle" is one sent forth. Jesus was an apostle. Paul and Barnabus were apostles. Paul and Barnabus were inferior disciples who were under the direction of the twelve Apostles, in Acts 15 these "apostles" went to the twelve apostles at Jerusalem to settle a dispute. The twelve apostles are the founders of the Church, they laid the foundation of the Church. The RCC is an apostolic church because she is built on a lasting foundation of apostles (Eph 2:20), she has ministers who have the spiritual gift of apostleship (1Cor 12:28).

In addition to being "one sent forth" an Apostle also has the "keys of the kingdom" meaning the keys of the Priesthood. The twelve apostles are the foundation of the Church and just as Jesus Christ is the "chief cornerstone" that foundation should be a living foundation. Jesus Christ promised to guide His Church by revelation to those living Apostles. Because of apostacy and rejection of the authority of the Apostles that authority was lost and the Church was "driven into the wilderness". Then the Church was fractured into squabbling sects until the Roman Emporer Constantine gathered leaders of those factons together and they decided what sort of god they were worshipping. Without revelation (public or private) they came up with a god who could not "see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell." That could not be seen, that could not speak and that was nothing more than a philosophical speculation.

A "prophet" is a spiritual person. In the New Testament prophets are secondary. Prophets are subject to other prophets. Prophets like Judas and Silas exhorted members of the church with the words that came from the Jerusalem council. Like the prophets in Acts 15, the RCC has a prophetic office that proclaims and edifies the body of Christ (Eph 4:11,12). The gift of private prophecy exists in the RCC, the prophetic spirit did not disappear with the Apostolic times.

A prophet is a little more than just a "spiritual person." What example do we have in the New Testament of a Prophet? John the Baptist comes to mind. What did he do? Preached faith in the Lamb of God and repentance and baptism. He taught the people to follow Christ, he prepared the way before Him. The Jews had been in a state of apostacy, that is why John was sent to call them to repentance and to "make His paths straight" and to proclaim a restoration of truth.

After Peter died his successor was the Bishop of Rome, he was the head of the church. While the apostle John was alive the church at Corinth called on the Bishop of Rome to settle a dispute instead of the living apostle John. While the apostle John was alive the Bishop of Rome spoke for God with authority to settle a dispute. Bishops were meant to succeed the apostles, after Peter died the Apostle John was busy ordaining bishops not other apostles.

Peter was not a Bishop and the Bishop of Rome could not be his successor. If the Church at Corinth consulted with the Bishop of Rome that does not prove he was the legal successor, in fact if they did not consult John the remaining Apostle that indicates that the Church was already in deep apostacy by that time. The "falling away" spoken of by Paul was a rebellion or a turning away from the true authority of God. John did not call other apostles because by that time the battle was lost.

The Bishop of Rome has apostolic authority to lead and govern the entire church. Before the death of Peter, the Bishop of Rome was ordained by a living apostle. After the death of Peter, the head Bishop of Rome received the "keys of the kingdom" from Christ himself. The "keys of the kingdom" are not handed on by one person to another person through the laying on of hands, the head of the Church gets them from Jesus Christ just like Peter received "the keys" from Christ himself.

He was ordained a Bishop, not an apostle. When did Christ personally give the "keys of the kingdom" to this Bishop of Rome? The keys can be confered just like the Priesthood itself, otherwise how else could these keys of the kingdom be handed down in the "apostolic Church"? I think that would call for a "first vision" every time a new Bishop of Rome would be called?

u]Joseph Smith could not have received the apostolic authority from the apostle Peter. Ordination confers authority. Ordination requires the physical laying on of hands. After Peter died he has a spirit body, his spirit body won't be united with his physical body till the second coming of Jesus. If Peter does not have physical hands then he could not have laid hands on Joseph Smith to confer authority.

That is correct, it does take physical hands laid on to confer authority, and Peter, James, and John were resurrected beings when they ordained Joseph Smith to the Priesthood. There were others besides Jesus who have been resurrected. (Matthew 27:52-53)

The Church at Rome did fall into apostasy. The Church at Rome is "the the pillar and ground of the truth" which holds fast to "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (1Tim 3:15; Jude 1:3). The RCC has bishops that hold fast to the faithful word as it has been taught (Titus 1:7-9) and continues in the things which it has learned and has been assured of (2Tim 3:1,14). The RCC stands fast and holds to the traditions which it has been taught, whether by word, or by epistle (2Thes 2:15). Though the storm rages and every wind of doctrine blows against it, the Church of Rome will not fall.

The New Testament foretells of churches that will depart from the indestructible church built on Peter, it says that "in latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils" (1Tim 4:1). The New Testament also tells us that "many false prophets shall rise, they shall deceive many" (Matt 24:11). These false prophets will "come to you in sheep's clothing" and they "shall show great signs and wonders, they shall deceive the very elect" (Matt 7:14; Matt 24:24).

Yes I agree the church at Rome did fall into apostacy...in fact the entire world did for some 1400 years. Yes there are false prophets to be in the last days which will decieve many. But don't you think the Lord would have said that there will be NO prophets in the last days if all of them were false prophets? The very wording kind of argues for existance of true prophets?

The New Testament reveals that there will false prophets and false teachers that shall bring damnable heresies (2Pet 2:1). The Church of the New Testament settled disputes and clarifies by calling a council (Acts 15). Like the New Testament Church, the RCC calls council settle a disputes. The council clarifies her apostolic faith, deepens her own understanding of the faith, and defends it against errors. The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the living teaching office of the RCC. Even though revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for the Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries. Development of doctrine defines, sharpens, and interprets the deposit of faith. The RCC has final authority to settle disputes between Christians. The RCC was appointed to speak for God. The Spirit of truth guides the council to all truths.

Yes there were false prophets and false teachers even in the church in the days of the apostles. Yes in Acts 15 it does speak of calling a council to settle disputes. And who composed this council? (Acts 15:6) "And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter." Not a council of Bishops or scribes of philosophers but Apostles and Elders. They recieved revelation on the matter.

A creed summarizes of the principal truths of the faith that Christians profess. From the beginning, the apostolic Church expressed and handed on her faith in brief formulae normative for all. This summary of faith encompasses in a few words the whole knowledge of the true religion contained in the Old and the New Testaments. Through the centuries many articles of faith have been articulated in response to the needs of the different eras. This article of faith is a summary of the principal truths of the faith and serves as the first and fundamental point of reference. The Apostles' Creed is so called because it is rightly considered to be a faithful summary of the apostles' faith.

Peter tells us that the Bibleâ??s meaning is not always clear (2Pet 3:16). All revealed truths are not contained in the Bible; neither is every truth in the Bible revealed. It takes the authority of the successors of the apostles to formulate the doctrines of the faith properly. In order to articulate some doctrines the RCC uses terminology not found in the Bible to define and explain an essential Christian doctrine. Closure to public revelation doesnâ??t mean there isnâ??t progress in the understanding of what has been entrusted to the Church. Central doctrines were not always understood or as clearly expounded in the Churchâ??s early days as the way they are now. Understanding grows and deepens over time.

Actually the creeds were formulated to define what should be rather simple the nature of God. After centuries of argueing they settled on a popular notion of the time that God was a being that had neither a body or passions and who could not be seen or even comprehended. The divine sonship was confounded into a belief that Christ was his own Father, which made countless scriptures that portrayed Him as a personal being, a Father of our spirits and His beloved Son as being God's Son, meaningless. It was supposed that those references were not to be taken literally. It is true the Bible's meaning is not always clear and all revealed truths are not contained in the Bible...but it takes revelation to understand revelation.

The RCC proclaims the truth because there is a famine on earth for hearing the word of the LORD. The Father's self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the RCC: God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the RCC. With the help of the Holy Spirit the RCC guards the apostolic faith. The RCC is the pillar and bulwark of the truth which faithfully guards the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. The bishop of Rome and the bishops are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ. Divine assistance is given to the successors of the apostles when they propose a teaching that leads to better understanding. Divine Revelation clarifies and gives us the certainty of faith.

I agree until the restoration of the Gospel there was a "famine in the land" that it was necessary to raise up a Prophet in these last days to restore the plain and precious truths that were lost over the centuries of apostacy. No man or church or even Prophet is infallible, there was only one who was infallible and that was Jesus Christ and He is at the head of His Church:The Church of Jeus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[kingonion]

we are not in the last days