Hannah Rebekah Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Thanks for the anonymous polemical cut-and-paste, Gervin. I'm inclined to stick with the sober, balanced, disinterested verdict of Dean Stendahl, already cited above: ""Once the theological pressures from later possible developments of practice and doctrine are felt less constricting," that is to say, once one is simply trying to read the text for what it says and not primarily to fight off the wickedness of Mormonism, "the text seems to speak plainly enough about a practice within the Church of vicarious baptisms for the dead. This is the view of most contemporary critical exegetes."Incidentally, here are some LDS academic treatments of baptism for the dead and closely related matters:Hugh W. Nibley, "Baptism for the Dead in Ancient Times"http://mi.byu.edu/publications/books/?book...&chapid=522Hugh W. Nibley, "Two Ways to Remember the Dead"http://mi.byu.edu/publications/books/?book...&chapid=504Gaye Strathearn, "Did the Early Christian Church Seek Salvation for the Dead?"http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol...um=1&id=539John A. Tvedtnes, "The Dead Shall Hear the Voice"http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol...um=2&id=297John A. Tvedtnes, "The Quick and the Dead"http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol...um=2&id=674John W. Welch, "Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology"http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol...um=2&id=223Thanks for the links...I'll make sure to post them on my blog on 'Baptism for the Dead.'http://baptismforthedead.blogspot.com/Here's another icon of John Baptizing in Hades and an ancient quote about baptism for the dead:Nibley note an ancient Christian belief, that I've also seen illustrated in historic Christian art works, that of how John the Baptist was believed to have continued his mission as a prophet and baptizer even after John had been martyred. Others descended after that, such as Christ & the Apostles, where they preached the gospel and baptized too. (See: Codex Vaticanus 3848, cited by Nibley, in his Mormonism and Early Christianity, see note 115; see also: Sheperd of Hermas, Sim. III, 9, 16; Max Dressel, Patrum Apostolicorum Opera (Leipzig, 1863), 548-49, & 631).Clement of Alexandria, who lived about 150 A.D.: "And the Shepherd, speaking plainly of those who had fallen asleep, recognizes certain righteous among Gentiles and Jews, not only before the appearance of Christ , but before the law, in virtue of acceptance before God- as Abel, as Noah, as any other righteous man. He says accordingly,'that the apostles and teachers, who preached the name of the Son of God, and had fallen asleep, in power and by faith preached to these that had fallen asleep before.' Then he subjoins `And they have them the seal of preaching. They descended, therefore, with them into the water, and again ascended. But these descended alive, and again ascended alive. But those, who had fallen asleep before, descended alive, and know the name of the son of God. Wherefore, they also ascended with them, and fitted into the structure of the tower, and un hewn were built up together; they fell asleep in righteousness and in great purity, and wanted only this seal.' 'For when the gentiles, which have not the law do by nature the thing of the law, these having not the law,are a law unto themselves.' according to the apostle." (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata III, 6, in PG 9:268; Stromata II, 9, in PG 8:980; Hermas, Sim. 9, 16). Link to comment
Gervin Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Thanks for the anonymous polemical cut-and-paste, Gervin. I'm inclined to stick with the sober, balanced, disinterested verdict of Dean Stendahl, already cited aboveI find the Catholic assessment to be sober and balanced:hereBut, please, no word games about "disinterested." Your LDS cut and pastes all begin with an interest in promoting, and conclude with, a pro-LDS position, I assume.Back to your book, it says:The anti-Mormon claim that those who baptize for the dead cannot be Christian also ignores the fact that such groups as the Montanistsâ??whom we have already seen to be universally recognized as Christiansâ??practiced a similar rite.Question: do the Montanists represent a mainstream Christian belief and isn't it possible that a Christian cult can engage in abberant practices?It would further seem to questionâ??yet againâ??the Christianity of Roman Catholics: "The faithful on earth," Rome teaches, "through the communion of saints, can relieve the suffering of the souls in purgatory by prayer, fasting, and other good works, by indulgences, and by having Masses offered for them."370 It questions, too, the Christianity of one of the largest and oldest Protestant churches, the Church of England, and its related communions, who also teach prayer for the dead.371 Can any definition of Christianity which excludes both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England possibly be taken seriously? Have Catholics ever believed or practiced the salvation of the dead through proxy baptism? Link to comment
Pahoran Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Thanks for the anonymous polemical cut-and-paste, Gervin.Which is as good as it gets, BTW.This is a sad piece. It relies upon the desperate "they" argument, although the word is not present in the Greek. The notion that "baptism for the dead" might mean "little Johnny was baptised with the same name as his now-dead grandfather" is almost as compelling. It reminds me of James White's argument that "baptism for the dead" may mean something like "baptising someone to replace a Christian who had died."The prize, though, goes to this howler:Although we have no way of knowing for sure who was engaging in this practice, it is certain that Paul was not referring to orthodox Christians baptizing the dead. Catholic and Protestant scholars agree on that. It's "certain," is it?No.It is not.Regards,Pahoran Link to comment
Daniel Peterson Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 But, please, no word games about "disinterested."Your Catholic cut-and-paste was obviously intended to criticize Mormonism. It had an overt anti-LDS agenda. If you have evidence to suggest that Krister Stendahl -- Lutheran bishop of Stockholm, preeminent New Testament scholar, and dean of Harvard Divinity School -- was writing out of comparable but covert pro-Mormon agenda, I hope you'll share it.Your LDS cut and pastesWhat "LDS cut and pastes"? Prof. Stendahl wrote an article for the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. You're entirely welcome to read it in its entirety.Back to your book, it says:The anti-Mormon claim that those who baptize for the dead cannot be Christian also ignores the fact that such groups as the Montanistsâ??whom we have already seen to be universally recognized as Christiansâ??practiced a similar rite.Question: do the Montanists represent a mainstream Christian belief and isn't it possible that a Christian cult can engage in abberant practicesIt absolutely is.But here's the logic: The Montanists practiced vicarious baptism for the dead, and are universally considered to have been Christians. One who accedes to common usage and calls the Montanists Christians cannot, thereupon, consistently claim that the Mormons are to be considered non-Christians because they practice vicarious baptism for the dead.This is mutatis mutandis simply yet another instance of the same argument, previously applied to the first-century Christians of Corinth: One who considers the early Corinthian Christians to be genuinely Christian despite their practice of vicarious baptism for the dead cannot consistently deny the Christianity of Mormons on the grounds that Mormons practice vicarious baptism for the dead.It would further seem to questionâ??yet againâ??the Christianity of Roman Catholics: "The faithful on earth," Rome teaches, "through the communion of saints, can relieve the suffering of the souls in purgatory by prayer, fasting, and other good works, by indulgences, and by having Masses offered for them."370 It questions, too, the Christianity of one of the largest and oldest Protestant churches, the Church of England, and its related communions, who also teach prayer for the dead.371 Can any definition of Christianity which excludes both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England possibly be taken seriously? Have Catholics ever believed or practiced the salvation of the dead through proxy baptism?No, and, of course, I make no such claim.In this regard, I simply broaden the argument: One who considers the early Corinthian followers of Jesus, and the Montanists, and the Roman Catholics, and the Anglicans to be Christians despite their practice of work(s) for the dead cannot consistently deny the Christianity of Mormons on the grounds that Mormons engage in work(s) for the dead.I'm glad to have been able to help. Link to comment
Gervin Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 But here's the logic: The Montanists practiced vicarious baptism for the dead, and are universally considered to have been Christians.CFR Link to comment
LifeOnaPlate Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Although we have no way of knowing for sure who was engaging in this practice, it is certain that Paul was not referring to orthodox Christians baptizing the dead. Catholic and Protestant scholars agree on that.haha nice. Although there is no way to know for certain, those who agree with me are certain. Link to comment
Markk Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I asked Markkkk, not long ago, whether he regards Catholicism as a Christian faith. He may have answered my question, but, if he did, I missed his answer.So I pose the question again: Markkkk, is Catholicism a Christian faith?Hi Dan,I have answered this, I believe a Christian is one that has their name in the Lambs book of life. I believe that Mormons, Catholics, and anyone else can be Christians if there name is written in this Book. There are doctrines that the Catholic Church teaches I would certainly disagree with, but for the most part I believe that their doctrine is within the pale. I have told you what I believe a Christian is and it is very similar to your view, just put true in front of Jesus as Lord. I also believe LDS theology is not within the pale in almost all their essential doctrines.Hope this helps Dan.MarkJohn 1:12 Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 This is a sad piece. It relies upon the desperate "they" argument, although the word is not present in the Greek. The notion that "baptism for the dead" might mean "little Johnny was baptised with the same name as his now-dead grandfather" is almost as compelling. It reminds me of James White's argument that "baptism for the dead" may mean something like "baptising someone to replace a Christian who had died."I used to post a lot at CAF, and I know those pre-packaged bits of propaganda well. They are all caricatures of what we believe and are no better than the anti stuff you see from the EV's. Link to comment
Daniel Peterson Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 CFRYou want even more references than the ones I've already supplied, at footnote 163 on page 52 of Offenders for a Word?Sheesh.Oh, alright. But I'm only going to supply you with a few:First sentence of the Wikipedia article on "Montanism": "Montanism was an early Christian movement of the early 2nd century A.D., named after its founder Montanus."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MontanismFirst sentence of the LookLex article on "Montanism":"In Christianity, sect (see heresy) promoting a strict understanding of the religion, asceticism and the idea of prophecies manifesting from the Holy Spirit through its leaders."http://looklex.com/e.o/montanism.htmFirst sentence of the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia article on "Montanism":"Heretical Christian movement founded in AD 156 by Montanus."http://www.answers.com/topic/montanismFirst sentence of the New World Encyclopedia article on "Montanism":"Montanism was an early Christian sectarian movement beginning in the mid-second century C.E., named after its founder Montanus."http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/MontanismFirst line of the Encyclopedia Britannica article on "Montanism" (emphasis added):"a heretical movement founded by the prophet Montanus that arose in the Christian church in Phrygia, Asia Minor, in the 2nd century." http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/390561/MontanismThe entirety of the definition given in Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary under "Montanist":"an adherent of a Christian sect arising in the late second century and stressing apocalyptic expectations, the continuing prophetic gifts of the Spirit, and strict ascetic discipline"http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/montanistsFirst line of the article on "Montanism" in The Oxford Classical Dictionary:"Montanism was a prophetic movement among the Christians of Asia Minor."N. G. L. Hammond and H. H. Scullard, eds., The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 2d ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970): 699.First line of the article on "Montanism" in the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity:"Ecstatic prophetic movement in the Christianity of Asia Minor, dating primarily to the late second and early third centuries."Everett Ferguson, ed., Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (New York and London: Garland, 1990): 622.First line of the entry on "Montanus" in The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion, published under the auspices of the American Academy of Religion:"Montanus (fl. 150-175), a Phrygian Christian apocalyptic prophet."Jonathan Z. Smith, ed., The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1995): 728.This is really becoming a bit redundant, isn't it? I think I've wasted enough time adding references on top of the ones I already provided in Offenders for a Word. Link to comment
Daniel Peterson Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 I believe a Christian is one that has their name in the Lambs book of life.It's fine that you believe that. And as long as you and those with whom you're attempting to communicate realize that your definition of the word has no basis in the Bible, doesn't match historical patterns of the use of the term in any language, is part of a recent and innovative Protestant "dialect" or jargon, and departs from ordinary contemporary use of the term Christian, no harm, no foul.I also believe LDS theology is not within the pale in almost all their essential doctrines.You're entirely welcome, if the urge ever comes upon you, to try to justify this verdict on the basis of lexicography and Christian history. I don't believe that the task can be accomplished. I believe that Offenders for a Word demonstrates that, and, to this date, I've seen absolutely nothing that comes within light years of proving otherwise. I would, though, enjoy seeing a serious attempt to do so. Link to comment
Markk Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Hi Dan,Do you have any actual evidence to justify your prophecy?Not a prophecy Dan, just a hunch?I'd like to see or here this guys response, it would be interesting, but either way it is one mans opinion. Did he say he accepted LDS theology as Christian theology, in context of my quote, a theology that would not save. Don't bend my context to fit yours.By which, it seems, you mean fundamentalist or evangelical Protestantism.You remind me of Parson Thwackum, in Henry Fielding's classic novel Tom Jones: "When I mention religion," he says, "I mean the Christian religion; and not only the Christian religion, but the Protestant religion; and not only the Protestant religion, but the Church of England."I told you my definition of a Christian way back in this thread, your stretching again Dan...are you Sicilian? http://fiercepika.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/vizzini.jpg Guess who you remind me of...LoL just a joke Dan!You still haven't dealt with the Children of God and how LDS thought, at least your version, believes active pedophiles can be Christians, and your not dealing with the fact that the LDS church teaches they alone are true Christians and that all others beliefs are an abomination and personally corrupt.Now your saying...All Christians are "false Christians" to some degree or another. God is the judge. We're saved through his grace.That is a loaded answer Dan, and a cop out. The LDS Church teaches and believes that the Christian world are false Christians, and that they alone are the only true Christians. It is only fair that you define the difference between a false Christian and a True Christian.It is loaded in that LDS theology teaches that everybody is saved by God grace through the atonement, even fundamentalist/evangelical protestants, your ducking the question.Whats is the difference between a true Christian Church, and a false Christian Church, and a true Christian and a false Christian? You don't appear to have grasped the purpose and point of Offenders for a Word.It also doesn't address apiculture, modern Iranian politics, the chemistry of the covalent bond, Freudianism, Federal Reserve policy, or tenses in the Chinese verb.Sure I have, That Christian is a generic term that includes anybody who wants to be called a Christian, no matter what their theology is, it doesn't matter as long as they call themselves Christian, then they are Christian. You have said, even if it was not in your book, that it would include pedophiles, and false Christians. Dan, I get your Book and I get your idea that somehow Church fathers, even though they have never even heard of Mormonism, would accept LDS teachings as Christian (I bet they would really embrace JS adding his name to Genesis)...,right or wrong, I disagree with that, as would most Christians (you can even take the word Christian here as your definition and it would still be accurate)O'well always a pleasureTake careMark Link to comment
Daniel Peterson Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 You still haven't dealt with the Children of God and how LDS thought, at least your version, believes active pedophiles can be ChristiansHow have I not dealt with this?I've said as clearly as I know how to say that I agree with normal usage of the term, which clearly holds that there can be (very) bad Christians.and your not dealing with the fact that the LDS church teaches they alone are true Christians and that all others beliefs are an abomination and personally corrupt.I've answered this one repeatedly, too.Latter-day Saints have never termed Catholics or Protestants or the Orthodox non-Christians, but we have always said that Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox lack priesthood authority and have either lost or garbled crucial doctrines.As for all non-Mormons being "personally corrupt," I don't believe I've ever heard that taught. I don't believe it myself, either. The LDS Church teaches and believes that the Christian world are false Christians, and that they alone are the only true Christians. It is only fair that you define the difference between a false Christian and a True Christian.I haven't heard this language of "false Christian" and "true Christian" much. It's foreign to my experience as a Latter-day Saint. But we have always said that Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox lack priesthood authority and have either lost or garbled crucial doctrines.Whats is the difference between a true Christian Church, and a false Christian Church, and a true Christian and a false Christian? I haven't heard this language of "false Christian" and "true Christian" much. It's foreign to my experience as a Latter-day Saint. But we have always said that Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox lack priesthood authority and have either lost or garbled crucial doctrines. Link to comment
Gervin Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 You want even more references than the ones I've already supplied, at footnote 163 on page 52 of Offenders for a Word?Sheesh.Oh, alright. But I'm only going to supply you with a few:First sentence of the Wikipedia article on "Montanism": "Montanism was an early Christian movement of the early 2nd century A.D., named after its founder Montanus."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MontanismFirst sentence of the LookLex article on "Montanism":"In Christianity, sect (see heresy) promoting a strict understanding of the religion, asceticism and the idea of prophecies manifesting from the Holy Spirit through its leaders."http://looklex.com/e.o/montanism.htmFirst sentence of the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia article on "Montanism":"Heretical Christian movement founded in AD 156 by Montanus."http://www.answers.com/topic/montanismFirst sentence of the New World Encyclopedia article on "Montanism":"Montanism was an early Christian sectarian movement beginning in the mid-second century C.E., named after its founder Montanus."http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/MontanismFirst line of the Encyclopedia Britannica article on "Montanism" (emphasis added):"a heretical movement founded by the prophet Montanus that arose in the Christian church in Phrygia, Asia Minor, in the 2nd century." http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/390561/MontanismThe entirety of the definition given in Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary under "Montanist":"an adherent of a Christian sect arising in the late second century and stressing apocalyptic expectations, the continuing prophetic gifts of the Spirit, and strict ascetic discipline"http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/montanistsFirst line of the article on "Montanism" in The Oxford Classical Dictionary:"Montanism was a prophetic movement among the Christians of Asia Minor."N. G. L. Hammond and H. H. Scullard, eds., The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 2d ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970): 699.First line of the article on "Montanism" in the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity:"Ecstatic prophetic movement in the Christianity of Asia Minor, dating primarily to the late second and early third centuries."Everett Ferguson, ed., Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (New York and London: Garland, 1990): 622.First line of the entry on "Montanus" in The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion, published under the auspices of the American Academy of Religion:"Montanus (fl. 150-175), a Phrygian Christian apocalyptic prophet."Jonathan Z. Smith, ed., The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1995): 728.This is really becoming a bit redundant, isn't it? I think I've wasted enough time adding references on top of the ones I already provided in Offenders for a Word.Sheesh, indeed. You talk big when defending Offenders for a Word, then start griping on the first CFR.heretical:adj.1.Of or relating to heresy or heretics.2.Characterized by, revealing, or approaching departure from established beliefs or standards.There's nothing to suggest that Montanism was universally considered to adhere to Christian practices and nothing in your references to indicate baptism for the dead was universally accepted by the Christian community at large.From your Looklex reference: The message that the Montanists claimed to bring forth was not always in accordance with the message brought by the majority church. Their prophecies were by outsiders understood as additions to the original message of Jesus, not clarifications of the original message. Moreover, the prophecies were described as being possessions by God. Within 25 years of its emergence, the Montanists were labelled heretics by the majority church.From Wiki: Nicene Christianity prevailed against Montanism within a few generations, labeling it a heresyFrom the UK Encycl: Science and art, all worldly education, every ornamental or gay form of life, should be avoided, because they are tainted by Paganism. The crown of human life is martyrdom. Fasts were multiplied, and rendered more severe. The second marriage was rejected, and the first was not encouraged. In fact, none of these citations you provide even mention baptism for the dead. Why would the LDS church point to this heretical group as validation of their practice of salvation in the afterlife? Link to comment
Daniel Peterson Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 Sheesh, indeed. You talk big when defending Offenders for a Word, then start griping on the first CFR.You act as if Offenders for a Word hadn't already supplied such references. And as if multiplying more such references weren't merely a few simple mouse clicks away.There's nothing to suggest that Montanism was universally considered to adhere to Christian practicesOh good grief. I've now provided you, between Offenders itself and my post to you, roughly a dozen absolutely mainstream authoritative sources uniformly describing the Montanists as Christians. I've found not a single source denying that they were Christians. Nor have you provided one.Go ahead. Somewhere out there, somebody probably does claim that they weren't Christians. (The late "Dr." Walter Martin probably would have, if he had ever heard of them and/or ever had occasion to use them in one of his polemics.) If you're so inclined, find such a person. But your point would be stronger if you could provide several such sources, and if they were expressing their opinions in mainstream and reputable scholarly publications.and nothing in your references to indicate baptism for the dead was universally accepted by the Christian community at large.I've made no such claim, though I would be gratified and not at all surprised to learn that it was accepted and practiced well beyond Corinth. I've simply provided evidence that one very early Christian community practiced it, and that one exceptionally important biblical apostle, at a very minimum, appears to have had no problem with the practice.We have no relevant evidence from the first-century Christian congregation at Smyrna, say, neither positive nor negative, and nothing whatsoever from the apostle Thaddaeus, for instance, whether on this or any other such topic.We do know that the practice also occurred among the Montanists, who were chiefly located in Phrygia -- that is, in west central Anatolia -- quite some distance away from Corinth (especially by the measure of ancient travel), which might seem to suggest a somewhat wide diffusion of the practice among early Christians, and that it was ultimately condemned at the councils of Carthage and of Hippo in the late fourth century (in North Africa, within the boundaries of modern Tunisia and Algeria, respectively) which suggests an even wider diffusion of the practice.As to your comments that the Montanists departed, doctrinally, from mainstream Christianity: Yes! Of course! Undenied! Irrelevant! My only point, a very limited one, is that mainstream sources, without any exception known to me or cited by you, recognize the Montanists (and the first-century Corinthian followers of Jesus) as Christians despite their apparent practice of baptism for the dead, and that, accordingly, nobody can thrust the Mormons from Christendom on the grounds that Mormons practice baptism for the dead without directly contradicting mainstream usage of the term Christian. This is true whether or not the Montanists are considered heretical Christians. (A "heretical Christian" is still a type of Christian, just as a "tall German" is a kind of German and a "bad musician" is a sort of musician. Any X with any attribute y is, nonetheless, an X.)One cannot, logically, affirm that p+x is legitimate while simultaneously denying the legitimacy of q+x on the grounds of x. To do so would, it seems, be the essence of a double standard.Why would the LDS church point to this heretical group as validation of their practice of salvation in the afterlife?The "LDS Church" doesn't point to this heretical group in any way, let alone "as validation of their practice of salvation in the afterlife."I pointed to the group (along with the Marcionites, whom we have not yet mentioned here) as an example of one that seems to have practiced baptism for the dead -- and supplied supporting references at page 109, footnote 369, of Offenders for a Word -- solely and expressly to make the point that, since this group is typically if not universally considered Christian despite its performance of vicarious baptisms for the dead, using the performance of vicarious baptisms for the dead as a basis for excluding Mormonism from Christianity manifestly collides head-on with standard usage of the term Christian. The allegedly heretical character of the Montanists (and/or of the Marcionites and/or of the earliest Christian congregation at Corinth) is neither here nor there. (In fact, in a certain sense, when an effort is being made to determine the limits of the semantic range of a word, it's precisely the marginal or borderline cases that need to be examined.) Link to comment
Gervin Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Oh good grief. I've now provided you, between Offenders itself and my post to you, roughly a dozen absolutely mainstream authoritative sources uniformly describing the Montanists as Christians. I've found not a single source denying that they were Christians. Nor have you provided one.Go ahead. Somewhere out there, somebody probably does claim that they weren't Christians. (The late "Dr." Walter Martin probably would have, if he had ever heard of them and/or ever had occasion to use them in one of his polemics.) If you're so inclined, find such a person. But your point would be stronger if you could provide several such sources, and if they were expressing their opinions in mainstream and reputable scholarly publications.If they existed today would they be considered "Christian" along with the other heretical acts they perform? I think not. A quick look found one scholar who doesn't consider them Christian. William Tabbernee, Ph.D., D.D., Litt.D., Stephen J. England Distinguished Professor of the History of Christianity (T.P.T.C., Coburg Teachers' College, 1965; Dip.R.E., Melbourne College of Divinity, 1968; L.Th., Melbourne College of Divinity, 1968; Diploma in Ministry, College of the Bible, Melbourne, 1970; B.A. (Hons.), University of Melbourne, 1972; S.T.M., Yale University, 1973; Ph.D., University of Melbourne, 1979; D.D. (Honorary degree), Phillips University, 1993. Litt.D., University of Melbourne, 2002.)"POLLUTED SACRAMENTS": AUGUSTINE'S DENUNCIATION OF MONTANIST EUCHARISTIC MEALSWilliam Tabbernee, Phillips Theological Seminary, Tulsa, OKThe charge made by Cyril is preserved in the published version of the Catechetical Lectures which he had begun to deliver at Jerusalem even before he was a bishop. There is no evidence that there were contemporary Montanists in Jerusalem at the time, or previously. His denunciation of Montanism appears to have been included in his curriculum for the sake of providing a relatively complete historical survey of major heresies. He also used the story of the alleged infanticide committed by Montanus and the earliest Montanists to explain to his catechumens how, because Montanists were also, although falsely, called Christians, Catholics had been accused of infanticide and cannibalism during the pre-Constantinian persecutions (ibid.). Link to comment
Daniel Peterson Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 If they existed today would they be considered "Christian" along with the other heretical acts they perform? I think not.I can think of nothing upon which to base that judgment. The overwhelming majority of mainstream contemporary scholars (if not all of them) consider the Montanists to be Christians, even if heretics, and I don't know of anything to suggest that one's Christianity or non-Christianity depends upon the century of one's birth.A quick look found one scholar who doesn't consider them Christian. William Tabbernee, Ph.D., D.D., Litt.D., Stephen J. England Distinguished Professor of the History of Christianity (T.P.T.C., Coburg Teachers' College, 1965; Dip.R.E., Melbourne College of Divinity, 1968; L.Th., Melbourne College of Divinity, 1968; Diploma in Ministry, College of the Bible, Melbourne, 1970; B.A. (Hons.), University of Melbourne, 1972; S.T.M., Yale University, 1973; Ph.D., University of Melbourne, 1979; D.D. (Honorary degree), Phillips University, 1993. Litt.D., University of Melbourne, 2002.)"POLLUTED SACRAMENTS": AUGUSTINE'S DENUNCIATION OF MONTANIST EUCHARISTIC MEALSWilliam Tabbernee, Phillips Theological Seminary, Tulsa, OKI predicted and fully expected that you would be able to find one, somewhere, and Dr. Tabbernee (of whom I've never previously heard) seems to be precisely the kind of person that I expected you would find, if you found one -- an evangelical or fundamentalist or, at least, conservative Protestant. (The very sorts of people who typically attempt to run Mormons -- and even, occasionally, Catholics -- out of Christianity, as well.) There are presumably others, too. But I think it fairly clear that they're not in the mainstream on this particular question. Link to comment
Daniel Peterson Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 Just for the fun of it, here are a few other very mainstream descriptions of the Montanists as Christians:1. From Phillip Schaff's classic History of the Christian Church:http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch10.htm"It is the first example of an earnest and well-meaning, but gloomy and fanatical hyper-Christianity."2. From Encyclopedia.com:http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Montanism.aspx"the . . . early Christian millennial movement . . . known as Montanism"3. From the "Product Description" of Christine Trevett, Montanism: Gender, Authority and the New Prophecy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) (emphasis mine):http://www.us.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/c...isbn=0521411823"The rise of Montanism was important in the history of the early Church. This prophetic movement survived for centuries after its beginnings in the second half of the second century and was a challenge to the developing Catholic tradition. Montanism looks at its teachings and the response of other Christians to it. . . . This is the first study of the movement in English since 1878. It takes account of the scholarship of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries."4. From Allusionsâ??Cultural, Literary, Biblical, and Historical: A Thematic Dictionary (The Gale Group, Inc., 2008):http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Montanism"Montanism: 2nd-century heretical Christian movement led by prophet Montanus."5. From TheologyWebsite.com under "Church History Study Helps: Montanism" (emphasis mine):http://www.theologywebsite.com/history/montanus.shtml"The Phrygians, as they were frequently called, fasted longer and more elaborately than other Christians and discouraged marriage."6. From AbsoluteAstronomy.com ("Exploring the Universe of Knowledge") s.v. "Montanism":http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Montanism"Montanism was an early Christian movement of the early 2nd century A.D., named after its founder Montanus."7. From the Cambridge Encyclopedia, Vol. 52:http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pa.../Montanism.html"A popular Christian movement derived from Montanus of Phrygia (AD c.170) and two women, Prisca and Maximilla. . . . Montanism was an early Christian sectarian movement of the mid-2nd century A.D., named after its founder Montanus."8. From the "Early Christianity Flowchart" (emphasis mine):http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/chr...early/mont.htmlSee also http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/chr...arly/index.html"Montanist churches generally employed the same symbols as other Christian groups."9. From the Probert Encyclopedia:http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/cgi-bi...sm&offset=0"Montanism was a schismatic movement which arose in the Christian church during the 2nd century."10. From "The Ecole Glossary" (emphasis mine):http://ecole.evansville.edu/glossary/montanism.html"Montanism was an apocalyptic and prophetic movement within Christianity that started around the late second century." 11. From NationMaster.com:http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Montanism"Montanism was an early Christian sectarian movement of the mid-2nd century A.D., named after its founder Montanus." 12. From the first volume of Justo L. Gonz Link to comment
zerinus Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 There's little doubt it - or something like it may have been performed in Corinth, but there's no evidence it was widespread, taught by the apostles or that the majority of scholars believe it was a tenet of the early church. Is that correct?No. Paul uses that practice as a theological justification of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection. That means that it was not only practiced at that time, but Paul approved of the practice and considered it a theologically sound Christian doctrineâ??otherwise why should he want to use a false, heretical, pagan doctrine which he did not believe in or approve of in order to justify one of the most fundamental principles of the gospelâ??the resurrection? That would be like Peter using the false Hindu pagan doctrine of reincarnation to justify the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ. Why would an Apostle of the Lord (who hadn't gone completely out of his mind) want to do such a thing? Link to comment
Gervin Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I can think of nothing upon which to base that judgment. The overwhelming majority of mainstream contemporary scholars (if not all of them) consider the Montanists to be Christians, even if heretics, and I don't know of anything to suggest that one's Christianity or non-Christianity depends upon the century of one's birth.It appears that the label of "Christian" is modern attachment to this group and not what they were called in the day of their existence: From Phillip Schaff's classic History of the Christian Church: The followers of Montanus were called Montanists, also Phrygians, Cataphrygians (from the province of their origin), Pepuziani, Priscillianists (from Priscilla, not to be confounded with the Priscillianists of the fourth century). They called themselves spiritual Christians (peumatikoiv), in distinction from the psychic or carnal Christians (yucikoiv).Schaff doesnâ??t say they were called Christians â?? they called themselves Christians.I predicted and fully expected that you would be able to find one, somewhere, and Dr. Tabbernee (of whom I've never previously heard) seems to be precisely the kind of person that I expected you would findHe's exactly the kind of person you thought I would find - because you've never heard of him?if you found one -- an evangelical or fundamentalist or, at least, conservative Protestant.Oh, the kind of person that you can assign some category meant to elicit some negative vibe ..(The very sorts of people who typically attempt to run Mormons -- and even, occasionally, Catholics -- out of Christianity, as well.)Don't come near my well with your poison, please. Your MO is a joy to witness .. because it's a testament to your faith.There are presumably others, too. But I think it fairly clear that they're not in the mainstream on this particular question.Care to prove that the source isn't mainstream? Your sources tend to be dictionaries and book synopsis. Link to comment
Gervin Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Just for the fun of it, here are a few other very mainstream descriptions of the Montanists as Christians:1. From Phillip Schaff's classic History of the Christian Church:http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch10.htm"It is the first example of an earnest and well-meaning, but gloomy and fanatical hyper-Christianity."2. From Encyclopedia.com:http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Montanism.aspx"the . . . early Christian millennial movement . . . known as Montanism"3. From the "Product Description" of Christine Trevett, Montanism: Gender, Authority and the New Prophecy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) (emphasis mine):http://www.us.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/c...isbn=0521411823"The rise of Montanism was important in the history of the early Church. This prophetic movement survived for centuries after its beginnings in the second half of the second century and was a challenge to the developing Catholic tradition. Montanism looks at its teachings and the response of other Christians to it. . . . This is the first study of the movement in English since 1878. It takes account of the scholarship of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries."4. From Allusionsâ??Cultural, Literary, Biblical, and Historical: A Thematic Dictionary (The Gale Group, Inc., 2008):http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Montanism"Montanism: 2nd-century heretical Christian movement led by prophet Montanus."5. From TheologyWebsite.com under "Church History Study Helps: Montanism" (emphasis mine):http://www.theologywebsite.com/history/montanus.shtml"The Phrygians, as they were frequently called, fasted longer and more elaborately than other Christians and discouraged marriage."6. From AbsoluteAstronomy.com ("Exploring the Universe of Knowledge") s.v. "Montanism":http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Montanism"Montanism was an early Christian movement of the early 2nd century A.D., named after its founder Montanus."7. From the Cambridge Encyclopedia, Vol. 52:http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pa.../Montanism.html"A popular Christian movement derived from Montanus of Phrygia (AD c.170) and two women, Prisca and Maximilla. . . . Montanism was an early Christian sectarian movement of the mid-2nd century A.D., named after its founder Montanus."8. From the "Early Christianity Flowchart" (emphasis mine):http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/chr...early/mont.htmlSee also http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/chr...arly/index.html"Montanist churches generally employed the same symbols as other Christian groups."9. From the Probert Encyclopedia:http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/cgi-bi...sm&offset=0"Montanism was a schismatic movement which arose in the Christian church during the 2nd century."10. From "The Ecole Glossary" (emphasis mine):http://ecole.evansville.edu/glossary/montanism.html"Montanism was an apocalyptic and prophetic movement within Christianity that started around the late second century." 11. From NationMaster.com:http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Montanism"Montanism was an early Christian sectarian movement of the mid-2nd century A.D., named after its founder Montanus." 12. From the first volume of Justo L. Gonz Link to comment
Markk Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Hi DanI've said as clearly as I know how to say that I agree with normal usage of the term, which clearly holds that there can be (very) bad Christians.Fair enough, for the record then, Dan Peterson and the LDS church believes that people who claim to be Christians, and teach and practice pedophilia are fellow Christians with the COJCOLDS, in the normal usage of the term of course. I will teach this the next time I teach a class on Mormonism..as long as my mother does not find out, as a LDS member she would disagree with that with whole heart. As for all non-Mormons being "personally corrupt," I don't believe I've ever heard that taught. I don't believe it myself, either.I haven't heard that taught either, what I have heard taught, and sat under this teaching, that all professing the Christian doctrines other that LDS doctrine are corrupt, let be clear here and just so as not to confuse here I 'll quote it one more time from the POGP...I'm glad you don't believe this teaching of the LDS church, by the way they refer to this as the apostasy. Z agree with it, he has called me a apostate many times on this thread, and thats OK, I understand, he is just saying what he has been taught.18 My object in going to ainquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)â??and which I should join. 19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: â??they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the gpower thereof.â? I haven't heard this language of "false Christian" and "true Christian" much. It's foreign to my experience as a Latter-day Saint. But we have always said that Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox lack priesthood authority and have either lost or garbled crucial doctrines.I heard this on the first Sunday of the month for many years, by both young and old, it goes something like this...."I know that this is the ONLY TRUE CHURCH, and that JS is a prophet of God...etc...etc..." Dan the opposite of True is False, if your going to sit here and tell me that the LDS people do not believe that they alone are the ONLY true Christians or Saints, or Mormons or whatever you want to call them, then I 'd have to say you have been sleeping in church and you do not understand the LDS teaching of what it teaches about the " so-called, false, " Christian Church. "Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity" (Journal of Discourses 10:230). Brigham YoungPresident Joseph Fielding Smith said: "Doctrines were corrupted, authority lost, and a false order of religion took the place of the gospel of Jesus Christ, just as it had been the case in former dispensations, and the people were left in spiritual darkness." (Doctrines of Salvation, p.266)."For hundreds of years the world was wrapped in a veil of spiritual darkness, until there was not one fundamental truth belonging to the place of salvation ...Joseph Smith declared that in the year 1820 the Lord revealed to him that all the 'Christian' churches were in error, teaching for commandments the doctrines of men" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p.282). "a perverted Christianity holds sway among the so-called Christians of apostate Christendom" (Mormon Doctrine, p.132); "virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ whom they vainly suppose to be a spirit essence who is incorporeal uncreated, immaterial and three-in-one with the Father and Holy Spirit" (Mormon Doctrine, p.269); "Gnosticism is one of the great pagan philosophies which antedated Christ and the Christian Era and which was later commingled with pure Christianity to form the apostate religion that has prevailed in the world since the early days of that era." (Mormon Doctrine, p.316)."What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.270). Brigham Young stated this repeatedly: "When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was grovelling in darkness" (Journal of Discourses 5:73); "The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God"[/b] (Journal of Discourses 8:171); "With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world" (Journal of Discourses 8:199)"And who is there that acknowledges [God's] hand? ...You may wander east, west, north, and south, and you cannot find it in any church or government on the earth, except the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p.24);30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have apower to lay the foundation of this bchurch, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of cdarkness, the only true and living dchurch upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well epleased, fspeaking unto the church collectively and not individuallyâ?? DC 1:30President Ezra Taft Benson said: "This is not just another Church. This is not just one of a family of Christian churches. This is the Church and kingdom of God, the only true Church upon the face of the earth..." (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.164-165).Marion Romney (LDS First Presidency) said, "This Church is the ensign on the mountain spoken of by the Old Testament prophets. It is the way, the truth, and the life" (Conference Report, April, 1961, pg. 119President George Q. Cannon said: "After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christendom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common origin. They all belong to Babylon" (Gospel Truth, p.324). Dan, I'd like you to maybe comment on each one of these quotes, and maybe add a chapter to your book how modern day Prophets have taught that there are "so-called" Christians, or in other words, people and churches that claim to be Christian, who are not, the very same ideology that I have said here. If modern day LDS prophets, who have authority that the early church fathers did not have ( they were apostates), and of course more authority than dictionaries and encyclopedias, teach that there are churches and people that are so-called, that in it's self blows your book out of the water from a LDS perspective.LDS prophets and apostles, and their teachings disagree with your book...period.Take careMG Link to comment
Daniel Peterson Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share Posted June 17, 2009 It appears that the label of "Christian" is modern attachment to this group and not what they were called in the day of their existence: From Phillip Schaff's classic History of the Christian Church: The followers of Montanus were called Montanists, also Phrygians, Cataphrygians (from the province of their origin), Pepuziani, Priscillianists (from Priscilla, not to be confounded with the Priscillianists of the fourth century).Just as we in a predominantly Christian society don't typically refer to Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics, Baptists, and Greek Orthodox as "Christians," "Christians," "Christians," "Christians," and "Christians," respectively.From an external perspective, it might well be sufficient to call something a lizard. But when you're talking about a variety of lizards and if you're going to single one out, you don't say "the lizard." You say "the chameleon," or "the bearded dragon."Schaff doesnâ??t say they were called Christians â?? they called themselves Christians.And he himself calls them Christians.Which serves my purpose, precisely. He's exactly the kind of person you thought I would find - because you've never heard of him?Oh, the kind of person that you can assign some category meant to elicit some negative vibe ..No, because he comes from the ideological location where such a position would be, in my view, most likely to be taken.Don't come near my well with your poison, please. Your MO is a joy to witness .. because it's a testament to your faith.I've honestly never understood your apparent felt need to be so personally hostile to me.Care to prove that the source isn't mainstream?Thus far, I've provided you with twenty-four (24) sources identifying the Montanists as Christians. You've provided me with one source saying the opposite. Your source appears to be the outlier. I'm not sure why you imagine that the burden of proof rests on me to prove that your single source doesn't represent the majority.Your sources tend to be dictionaries and book synopsis.Dictionaries, general encyclopedias, general histories of Christianity, theological websites, specialized encyclopedias of early Christianity, Cambridge University Press publishers' releases, etc. I've been quite deliberately going for a broad range of sources, precisely to establish that a very large consensus regards the Montanists as Christians.But, since you ask for it, here are a dozen more -- none of them plausibly to be dismissed as "marginal" or "fringe" -- for a grand total of thirty-six (36) separate sources affirming the Christianity of Montanism:25. John Bowden, ed., Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 6: Refers to Montanism as "this Christian movement."26. Volker Drehsen, et al., eds., W Link to comment
Daniel Peterson Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share Posted June 17, 2009 Fair enough, for the record then, Dan Peterson and the LDS church believes that people who claim to be Christians, and teach and practice pedophilia are fellow Christians with the COJCOLDS, in the normal usage of the term of course.You're trying to make this as inflammatory as you can. But your efforts are a bit too transparent, I think.First of all, as I've said over and over and over again, I'm simply using the term Christian as it's typically used, in English, in German, in Arabic, and in every other language I know, by ordinary speakers of those languages. Most people have really no problem at all responding to the question "Is X, the ax murderer, Jewish or Christian?" with the simple answer "He's a Jew" or "He's a Christian." This by no means endorses ax murder, as you seem to want to portray me as somehow condoning, or at least indifferent to, pedophilia.Second, don't play the stupid game of pretending that my position is a "belief" of "the LDS Church." The LDS Church has never taken a position on this. Members of the LDS Church simply speak the languages of the places in which they reside, as those languages are customarily spoken.I will teach this the next time I teach a class on Mormonism..as long as my mother does not find out, as a LDS member she would disagree with that with whole heart.I feel sorry for your poor mother.I'm glad you don't believe this teaching of the LDS church, by the way they refer to this as the apostasy. Z agree with it, he has called me a apostate many times on this thread, and thats OK, I understand, he is just saying what he has been taught.Does it gratify you in some odd way to attribute things to me that I don't believe and haven't said? Do you think it fills me with enthusiasm for spending more time trying to interact with you?I believe in the great apostasy, and I consider you an apostate. Clear enough?Dan the opposite of True is False, if your going to sit here and tell me that the LDS people do not believe that they alone are the ONLY true Christians or Saints, or Mormons or whatever you want to call them, then I 'd have to say you have been sleeping in church and you do not understand the LDS teaching of what it teaches about the " so-called, false, " Christian Church.Do you just make these things up out of thin air? Of course I understand the Church's teachings about the apostasy. I not only believe them, but I regard them as among the most obviously true of our doctrines.I've seen all of your quotations before -- and the lists from which you've copied them -- and I fully subscribe to the belief in a universal apostasy of ancient Christianity.LDS prophets and apostles, and their teachings disagree with your book...period.You haven't even read it, Markkkkk. If you had, you would have known better than to think I hadn't dealt with this issue. Link to comment
Calm Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Dictionaries, general encyclopedias, general histories of Christianity...One would expect these types of things to generally present the mainstream opinion as opposed to concentrate on the exceptions, wouldn't one? Link to comment
Markk Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Hi Dan,Your spinning now Dan. The LDS Church has never taken a position on this.Did you read the quotes Dan, obviously not, Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity" (Journal of Discourses 10:230). Brigham YoungFirst, BY questions if others are Christians, and then says the NT defines Christianity, and your claim is that the NT does not define who a Christian is.I thought that the Bible did not define who a Christians is, here a LDS prophet disagrees, this has nothing to do with the apostasy in context of or conversation, it has to do with a contradiction in your theory and you should adress this contridiction."virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ whom they vainly suppose to be a spirit essence who is incorporeal uncreated, immaterial and three-in-one with the Father and Holy Spirit" (Mormon Doctrine, p.269);"Mythical Christ?" Could this be another Jesus Dan. See Claim 1.Brigham Young stated this repeatedly: "When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was grovelling in darkness" (Journal of Discourses 5:73); "The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God" (Journal of Discourses 8:171); "With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world" (Journal of Discourses 8:199)BY certainly disagrees with your book , so-called implies that they are only a Christian because they think so, LDS teaching by a prophet was that they weren't.Kent Jackson said Christianity died, that it was dead, and that it was due to the rejection of true doctrine, and that this is what caused the apostasy. Dan, you can't separate the LDS teaching of the apostasy and true and false Christianity. The LDS church wants it cake and to eat it too. Also, you Work at a LDS university, you are in a "calling" where you teach, so what you say reflects on the church and is LDS thought. You have followers (Petersonites) that defend about anything you say here, just becaus eof who you are, so I'm not buying this is not a LDS teaching, whether officially or Un-officially, what you say is LDS thought, just as Hugh Nibley and other loved LDS teachers. And that is not a bad thing Dan, but it is a fact, and just the way it is.Then there's your personal view of what a Christian is, a view that claims very clearly that "a Christian is one that has Jesus as Lord," that is what you said, not me. How did you come to that conclusion Dan? Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.