Was There An Apostacy In The Early Christian Church?

[3DOP]

Hey guys.

Glenn,

I have shown you how I imagine the primacy to have developed. But I do not depend upon that for my personal confidence that the Church was healthy in the first centuries. I continually fall back upon "Aaron's rod" for my confidence as St. Clement first proposed. Looking at Scripture and history, I can provide myself a plausible framework to explain how I as a Catholic answer the misgivings expressed by Latter-day Saints because the apostles went unreplaced. Having shared that with you, my theory does not in the least preclude the possibility of a later apostasy...say in the 4th Century. Of course you can guess I have satisfied myself about that too, but I only point it out so that it might be easier to obectively analyze my reasonings. If I am not mistaken, I have so far not expressed anything that I could not believe as a Latter-day Saint. As a Latter-day Saint, I could be so impressed with the faith and fruits of the Christians of the first centuries, that I could be persuaded to move back the date for the Apostasy. I would still be committed to an apostasy, but I would still have a millenium and a half to find it!

It seems to me like most LDS really want to make it early. I tend to think that is because the argument from ecclesiastical hierarchy is simple and easy to understand. You can point to Acts 1 which suggests a precedent. Probably many of you have been persuaded in part from Acts 1 of the need for living apostles. If I were LDS, I would acknowledge the need for apostles and at the same time urge that I believe at least the Apostle John to still be alive in the first three centuries, and if not visibly leading, to be praying for a persecuted Church under duress so severe that you yourself said, "It is easy to understand why the apostles could not call other apostles to replace the ones that were being killed off."

As an LDS inclined to agree with 3DOP about the good fruit of the persecuted Christians, I would further admit that through nobody's fault, the apostles were not replaced, though John lived. I would argue that there has never been an "apostasy" without blame and sin and guilt. Without reference to 3DOP's Catholic framework for how he believes that apostles were supposed to pass off of the scene, as an LDS I would be inclined to push back the dates for the Apostasy. Maybe there are other compelling reasons for an early date that I am missing, but even as a Latter-day Saint, I would be uncomfortable with calling what happened to the Church of the first three centuries, an apostasy.

-------------------

As regards the documentation for the primacy of Rome, I can point to most of the extant literature available. Besides Sts. Irenaeus and Clement, St. Ignatius in his letter to the Romans writes in a significantly different way to them than to any of the other churches. And finally, even St. Paul's letter to the Romans, taken together with these earliest Church Fathers provides clues that are quite satisfying to me. I would make the case, but it is only peripheral. It helps one like me who is already a persuaded Catholic. For one who is not so predisposed, what is so satisfying to me, could be difficult to appreciate. Besides, as you see, I hang my case against early apostasy not on distinctively Catholic arguments, but upon arguments I would make if I were Protestant or LDS.

3DOP

Edited July 15, 2012 by 3DOP

[CASteinman]

I have shown you how I imagine the primacy to have developed. But I do not depend upon that for my personal confidence that the Church was healthy in the first centuries. I continually fall back upon "Aaron's rod" for my confidence as St. Clement first proposed.

I would like to weigh in a bit, bit I am not ready.

[3DOP]

We believe that the Gospel has been restored. This restoration required an apostacy to have occurred. In another thread 3DOP stated that he disagreed with our views that an apostacy had occurred. This thread is created to discuss the evidences of the apostacy.

The following are a few of the items that we believe are indicative of the apostacy:

Baptism no longer by immersion

Infant baptism

Concept of Infants not being innocent at birth

Governmental Change in the Church (the calling of Apostles done away with and the introduction of Cardinals and Archbishops)

The use of the term "the Holy Father" when referencing the Pope (i.e. see Matthew 23:9-10)

Celibacy requirement of bishops and priests

The worship and elevation of Mary

The praying to saints as advocates instead of only praying to God with Christ as advocate.

Grace without works leading to complete salvation

Etc.

What evidences exist for or against these claims?

Hi again Yep. Let's look at the first of your original misgivings about Catholic practices.

Baptism no longer by immersion?

The Catholic Church permits baptism by immersion. When Philip was traveling with the Ethiopian eunuch they came to a sufficient water source for the eunuch to be baptized, apparently by immersion, as they both came up out of the water, according to the Scripture. But if there weren't such a ready water source? What then? Too bad for those not near a river or pond? The Catholic Church teaches that as important as baptism is, it must not be withheld if because of the infirmity of the recipient, or a lack of water, immersion is impractical. We are aware that the Greek word for baptism originally meant "immersion", but Jesus used it to signify other things such as suffering and cleansing. The word has a meaning of its own for Christians. The Koine Greek cannot be insisted upon as the only legitimate usage of the term as it came to be used in the Scriptures and later.

It seems unlikely that the three thousand who were converted in Jerusalem on the Feast of Pentecost all received baptism by immersion. If someone in the city had a large pool adapted for the purpose, it seems likely that it would have become very filthy before very many had been completely immersed. Assuredly complete immersion gives a more complete symbol, but clean water is an important symbol too. I do not deny that one can be baptized in dirty water, but it seems inappropriate. It seems even less likely that St. Paul's jailer at Philippi would have had access to a big enough receptacle in his home for full immersion of his family. But even if we suppose that all of these were some how completely submerged, we just have a difference of opinion about the necessity of it.

What is supposed to be done if baptism was needed in a desert place, or when the rivers and lakes were frozen? I don't think those of us who live in a day and place of immediately available hot and cold running water can appreciate the practical impossibility for most of the centuries since Christ, of baptism for those in urgent need in circumstances of drought, or ice, or of infirmity, who if complete immersion were an absolute requirement, must have faced their God without the cleansing waters. So we don't believe that all the baptisms in Scripture are by immersions, but even if we did, Catholic Tradition teaches us that God permits easier methods, especially if there are difficulties with immersion.

3DOP

[3DOP]

I didn't realize that the Didache, which is a first century document, one of the very earliest, give some instructions regarding baptism that coincide with the Catholic practice:

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

---Didache, ch. 7, (the underlinings come from the link)

Anyway, it seems to me to express the sound and just principle that baptism should be performed as perfectly as possible, but in no case to be delayed because of any difficulties with the kind of water or availability of it.

[Yep]

3DOP,

I can see that the Catholic Church does have historical and traditional precedent for most of what it does and I feel that we will probably revolve in frustrating circles if we do not address the issue of why the LDS object to the alterations made. The conflict that I see is that such tradition and history is the result of men. What Biblical support does is given for the alterations? Which leaders were given authority to make changes and where is this presented Biblically? Am I wrong in my understanding that the Catholic Church only supports interpretation and not revelation?

[Alan]

For me the apostacy is an important question with which i have grappled for many years. Through study I have come to the conclusion that the common LDS assumption of an apostacy in the 1st or 2nd century is erronous. That elements of apostacy were evident in the new testament church of the first century is undisputed; but an entire apostacy of the whole church? Such a position is quite illogical to me.

I believe that while there were pockets of apostacy in the church, there were also pockets of orthodoxy. In my view, although the church was terminally ill well before, the apostacy was not complete until 570AD.

[Zakuska]

For me the apostacy is an important question with which i have grappled for many years. Through study I have come to the conclusion that the common LDS assumption of an apostacy in the 1st or 2nd century is erronous. That elements of apostacy were evident in the new testament church of the first century is undisputed; but an entire apostacy of the whole church? Such a position is quite illogical to me.

I believe that while there were pockets of apostacy in the church, there were also pockets of orthodoxy. In my view, although the church was terminally ill well before, the apostacy was not complete until 570AD.

IAmen!

[Yep]

For me the apostacy is an important question with which i have grappled for many years. Through study I have come to the conclusion that the common LDS assumption of an apostacy in the 1st or 2nd century is erronous. That elements of apostacy were evident in the new testament church of the first century is undisputed; but an entire apostacy of the whole church? Such a position is quite illogical to me.

I believe that while there were pockets of apostacy in the church, there were also pockets of orthodoxy. In my view, although the church was terminally ill well before, the apostacy was not complete until 570AD.

I think that your view and the LDS view differ in regards to what constituted an apostacy. The LDS view would claim that when the priesthood was lost to the Church the apostacy occurred, which we would probably claim at the death of the last apostle then the death of the final priesthood holder at that time. Everything discussed here is simply signs of the apostacy. The Church believes that the priesthood operates based on the authority of the Prophet/Leader, with the lack of authority, no ordination would be held as valid.

Now, if I'm wrong correct me, I'm talking quickly and not checking my facts. But this is my understanding without researching the thoughts.

[Ron Beron]

I think that your view and the LDS view differ in regards to what constituted an apostacy. The LDS view would claim that when the priesthood was lost to the Church the apostacy occurred, which we would probably claim at the death of the last apostle then the death of the final priesthood holder at that time. Everything discussed here is simply signs of the apostacy. The Church believes that the priesthood operates based on the authority of the Prophet/Leader, with the lack of authority, no ordination would be held as valid.

Now, if I'm wrong correct me, I'm talking quickly and not checking my facts. But this is my understanding without researching the thoughts.

That would be with the death of James since he shared the priesthood with Jesus.

[3DOP]

3DOP,

I can see that the Catholic Church does have historical and traditional precedent for most of what it does and I feel that we will probably revolve in frustrating circles if we do not address the issue of why the LDS object to the alterations made. The conflict that I see is that such tradition and history is the result of men. What Biblical support does is given for the alterations? Which leaders were given authority to make changes and where is this presented Biblically? Am I wrong in my understanding that the Catholic Church only supports interpretation and not revelation?

Hi again Yep. I agree with trying to avoid frustration. Let's both just try to understand the other knowing that it is very unlikely that either of us will change. I made a long post answering all of the questions you asked. But it seemed to lack sympathy. I think I often fail with non-Catholics because I try to give "the whole book" in one post. I've trimmed way down this time. If you are willing, I think we should just share our views this way, a little at a time.

Yep, both of us thinks we have God the Holy Ghost, and the truth on our side. Let us pray that He, God's Spirit, will plant the seeds in souls that will burst into life, in His time. Nobody converts in a day anyway. But if we share the true faith with God's love (even on the Internet!), it will bear good fruit somewhere somehow. Believing that, we won't be frustrated, and we can disagree with each other with all good cheer. It is in that spirit that I begin my reply to your latest discussion regarding mode of baptism.

--------------------------------------

I appreciate the admission of traditional precedent. But I would point out that with regards to mode of baptism, it has not been established that there has been an "alteration". How can I know from the Bible alone that the 3,000 converts at Pentecost were baptized by immersion?

Even if they were immersed, I don't know how to answer the question of what to do when there isn't enough water for immersion. I have a hard time believing that regarding a sacrament of such importance, that it is invalidated if because of a difficulty, the whole body cannot be completely submerged. The Scriptures tell us that John's baptisms took place in the Jordan River. I tend to think that it was by complete immersion, but I can't prove it. John may have merely been in the river so as to keep a fresh, flowing source of water which he poured on the heads of those being baptized. For us it doesn't matter. Catholics accept baptism by immersion. It is only a problem if some group wants to suggest that all baptisms must be done the exact same way regardless of circumstances. I think I could easily insist that you give biblical support for your "alteration", that is, for your insistence on one exclusive mode of baptism.

Regards,

3DOP

Edited July 18, 2012 by 3DOP

[Ron Beron]

Even if they were immersed, I don't know how to answer the question of what to do when there isn't enough water for immersion. I have a hard time believing that regarding a sacrament of such importance, that it is invalidated if because of a difficulty, the whole body cannot be completely submerged. The Scriptures tell us that John's baptisms took place in the Jordan River. I tend to think that it was by complete immersion, but I can't prove it. John may have merely been in the river so as to keep a fresh, flowing source of water which he poured on the heads of those being baptized. For us it doesn't matter. Catholics accept baptism by immersion. It is only a problem if some group wants to suggest that all baptisms must be done the exact same way regardless of circumstances. I think I could easily insist that you give biblical support for your "alteration", that is, for your insistence on one exclusive mode of baptism.

Regards,

3DOP

I believe Tertullian and the Didache was the first to consider the concept of baptism by less-than-immersion.

The instruction for administering baptism in the seventh chapter of the Didache, the oldest of this group of texts and together with the thirteenth chapter of Tertullian, de Baptismo, the classic of this series, is as follows: "Concerning baptism, baptise thus : Having first rehearsed all these things, baptise in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost in running water ; but if thou hast no running water, baptise in other water ;and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost."

"The Formula of Baptism in the Early Church" Leo F. Miller The Catholic Historical Review , Vol. 10, No. 4 (Jan., 1925), pp. 515-535

The question later on was not one of methodology but theology. Was the rite of baptism done according a trinitarian formula. The article continues...

The same line of argument was taken up again by Wilhelm Tosetti,6 who appeals to the first Apology of St. Justin, ch. 61, to Tertullian De Baptismo, ch. 13, and to others, and infers in terms more sweeping than his predecessors that "the trinitarian formula of baptism in our sense was unknown (fremd) to the ancient Church."

[3DOP]

I believe Tertullian and the Didache was the first to consider the concept of baptism by less-than-immersion.

"The Formula of Baptism in the Early Church" Leo F. Miller The Catholic Historical Review , Vol. 10, No. 4 (Jan., 1925), pp. 515-535

The question later on was not one of methodology but theology. Was the rite of baptism done according a trinitarian formula. The article continues...

Hey Ron Beron,

I think it was St. Peter in Acts 2 that first considered baptism by less than immersion. Heh. No proof either way though.

The Didache is at the latest only ten years after St. Ignatius. At the earliest, it pre-dates most of the New Testament. Pouring started very early, and I still await an answer as to why it should be thought to be such a horrible practise. Tertullian is a mixed bag. I like his style. Eloquent. Persuasive. His early writings on Scripture and Tradition could have passed at the Council of Trent! But his later life speaks neither for a Restoration nor for Catholicism. All of his writings still serve a valuable historical witness. Not surprisingly, (as one who rejects the Catholic faith), he disapproves of it personally, but he is the first definite witness to infant baptism if I am not mistaken. (Of course I hold that infants were baptized in apostolic times, but the Bible neither proves nor disproves it.)

3DOP

[Ron Beron]

Hey Ron Beron,

I think it was St. Peter in Acts 2 that first considered baptism by less than immersion. Heh. No proof either way though.

The Didache is at the latest only ten years after St. Ignatius. At the earliest, it pre-dates most of the New Testament. Pouring started very early, and I still await an answer as to why it should be thought to be such a horrible practise. Tertullian is a mixed bag. I like his style. Eloquent. Persuasive. His early writings on Scripture and Tradition could have passed at the Council of Trent! But his later life speaks neither for a Restoration nor for Catholicism. All of his writings still serve a valuable historical witness. Not surprisingly, (as one who rejects the Catholic faith), he disapproves of it personally, but he is the first definite witness to infant baptism if I am not mistaken. (Of course I hold that infants were baptized in apostolic times, but the Bible neither proves nor disproves it.)

3DOP

I am less concerned with the mode of baptism as I am about the theology behind it. Since I do not believe the relationship between God and Jesus to homoousian then I would have trouble with a trinitarian reading of the baptismal prayer. Like most things in life ritual in and of itself has little efficaciousness, but certainly the teachings behind it do. To the point, however, I found this interesting little comparison...

The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change. When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mr 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! (Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989).

[3DOP]

I am less concerned with the mode of baptism as I am about the theology behind it. Since I do not believe the relationship between God and Jesus to homoousian then I would have trouble with a trinitarian reading of the baptismal prayer. Like most things in life ritual in and of itself has little efficaciousness, but certainly the teachings behind it do. To the point, however, I found this interesting little comparison...

Ron. Hey. Fair enough. I agree that it shouldn't be a matter of concern. I only brought up mode of baptism because it was the first symptom of apostasy on the list from Yep's opening thread.

[Ron Beron]

Ron. Hey. Fair enough. I agree that it shouldn't be a matter of concern. I only brought up mode of baptism because it was the first symptom of apostasy on the list from Yep's opening thread.

The original church believed that one had to be buried if only symbolically in the same manner as Jesus was only in water and raised from the water as Jesus was resurrected.

I do believe there was an apostasy, but it was an apostasy based on a change of theology (nature of God, relationship of Jesus with the Father, Mariology, saint devotion, etc.) and not ritual.

[Alan]

I think that your view and the LDS view differ in regards to what constituted an apostacy. The LDS view would claim that when the priesthood was lost to the Church the apostacy occurred, which we would probably claim at the death of the last apostle then the death of the final priesthood holder at that time. Everything discussed here is simply signs of the apostacy. The Church believes that the priesthood operates based on the authority of the Prophet/Leader, with the lack of authority, no ordination would be held as valid.

Now, if I'm wrong correct me, I'm talking quickly and not checking my facts. But this is my understanding without researching the thoughts.

Personally, I believe this is incorrect. If an aircraft was flown into the conference centre during general conference and wiped out the entire Council of Twelve and the First Presidency this October, the church would not cease to exist or become apostate.

Nibley points out that the apostles in the new testament church gave instruction regarding the ordination of Bishops which did not require the involvement of the apostles or any general authority. Three serving Bishops could select and ordain a new Bishop. I would imagine other procedures were also established to enable the church to function quite autonomously at a local and regional level. Therefore, in these areas the perpetuation of the church had a much greater longevity.

[3DOP]

Hi Yep.

Do you have anything more to add to support your original view about one mode of baptism? When the Bible is ambiguous about whether there is only one legitimate mode, why wouldn't it be worthwhile to look at how things were done historically? If there is no evidence that baptism was also done by pouring, it would be worse for my position. Instead, a first century or very early second century document shows that complete submergence was not always practised as people of my faith would expect. Then when we see this, you seem to propose that the evidence is somehow inadmissable because of a theory that would claim that this history and tradition are unreliable. What support do you have for such a claim? There is bad history. There is corrupt tradition. But I have never heard anyone say the Didache is false in what it relates about an accepted mode of baptism.

Yep

The conflict that I see is that such tradition and history is the result of men.

3DOP

Do not Mormons appeal to the history of Joseph Smith in some respect to support a Restoration? Do they not appeal to the history of the pre-Restoration Church to try to establish an apostasy? It seems to me that everything depends on whether the early church followed the teaching and practise of the Apostles or whether they corrupted it. How can we try to discern such a question without recourse to history and tradition?

Jesus condemns and rightly so, the Pharisees for following traditions of men instead of the commandments of God. That means that they should have been following the traditions of Moses that came from God. Tradition is unavoidably necessary to any religious faith that tries to maintain truths and practices once established. That is why the Scriptures, in addition to discouraging us from following traditions of men, also encourage us to keep steadfastly the good traditions that come from God:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned whether by word, or by our epistle.

---2 Thess. 2:15

Catholics also take note that there are traditions learned by word (of mouth) and those learned by epistle (written). At any rate, Catholics believe that both (Scripture and Tradition) are a part of God's revelation. As I said above, everyone had seen baptisms with their own eyes. There was no necessity for biblical instructions to spell out the modes of baptism Christians had already observed as Apostolic practices. In fact, given that most of the Scriptures weren't even written until decades after the spread of the Gospel, we conclude that Apostolic Tradition precedes and necessarily interprets the Scriptures that followed. It is necessary for any faith community to maintain the traditions they have received if they wish to have continuity with their fathers in the faith.

3DOP

Edited July 22, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Yep

What Biblical support does is given for the alterations? Which leaders were given authority to make changes and where is this presented Biblically? Am I wrong in my understanding that the Catholic Church only supports interpretation and not revelation?

3DOP

I do not concede that any of the practices or teachings we have discussed are alterations. I have even given reasons why I tend to think that two baptismal events in Scripture were probably not by immersion. However, since we are talking about mode of baptism, I would point out that baptism is a ceremonial rite which has to be performed according to the law of God. Even if we think baptism was by immersion in every instance in the New Testament, does that prove that this is the only way it can be done? Christ gives to the Apostles and their successors the authority, for the good of souls, to pass legislation that can be changed either by St. Peter alone, or the Apostolic succession as a whole:

And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

---Mt. 16:19

Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven. And whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

---Mt. 18:18

The hierarchy of the Church is the subject of the second quote. St. Peter alone is the subject of the first quote. There is no authority to change doctrine. But there is authority to say what pertains to ceremonial ordinances. In addition to believing that we have essentially retained the form of words and actions necessary for valid baptism, there are six other Sacraments, and there are several families of ceremonial rites which correspond to the ministries of the Apostles and their geographical missions. There is no necessity for strict uniformity. There isn't just one rite of baptism, but several, and if for lack of clean, unfrozen water in which to submerge a candidate, the Church elected to "make an alteration", it is the Church that has the keys, and Christ indicated that there would be liberty for the Church to make such prudent and reasonable changes for the good of souls! Where it does not change the essential form, matter, or intention of the Sacrament, the Church has authority over her own ceremonies.

The original baptisms were also performed in Greek or Aramaic or Latin. If you are committed to rigorous imitation of all the ceremonies you might as easily insist that the ceremony must be conducted in the same languages. How do you know that it can be translated? Let me answer. The same we know that it is okay to pour for baptism. Within broad guidelines, God wishes to work through human instruments to use certain symbolic ceremonies to impart His grace and goodness. God hasn't desired His Church be rigorously legalistic. That is why He granted the power to make changeable laws for certain times and circumstances. If someone is sick and wants to accept baptism, we never have to think about breaking a hole in the ice to save the soul while killing the body.

---------------

Revelation is a much misunderstood subject and I have spoken at length here about how Mormons tend to underappreciate the Catholic beliefs. I admit it is not your fault. The way our beliefs have been expressed were not crafted with the Latter-day Saint of the 19th Century in mind. However, I will leave that subject for later because with regards to mode of baptism, I have already explained how sometimes the Church is guided by the gift of prudence into knowing what the good God wants without needing any more passages of Scripture.

3DOP

Edited July 24, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Okay...So continuing with the list from the original post, we come to infant baptism and infant guilt. I am happy to move on from mode of baptism if no one has any objections.

I'll just lay out the bare outline for now.

Ps. 51 on being born in guilt in some respect...Even if wrong...what an understandable mistake with no Latter-day revelation.

Consideration of the rite of circumcision which was a ceremony for infants under the Old Covenant which was met with rather severe punishment if not observed. Observe how baptism is connected to circumcision by St. Paul in his epistle to the Colossians.

A look at John 3 about being born of water and the Holy Ghost...Is there an exception made for toddlers and babies?

The Catholic doctrine which distinguishes between actual and original sin. That there is no sense punishment without actual sin. There is no burning hell without actual sin.

Deprivation of the beatific vision. We have to be accomodated to the interior life of God to enjoy heaven. Heaven not ONLY a geographical place to go, but a state of being. Where we see God, wherever the body happens to be, it seems like it has to be heaven. The inhabitants of Hell are not longing for heaven...the vision of God for eternity. Souls eternally attain to what best fits their level of perfection and could not be happier any place but where they are. Without the grace of baptism, no punishment, but no blessing either. Speculations about the salvation (heavenly existence) of unbaptized infants. The Feast of the Holy Innocents.

So there are my notes. Those of you who have been around have seen it before. In my opinion, the passages in the Book of Mormon that deal with infant baptism reveal that in the new world a doctrine that is incompatible with Old World infant baptism was correctly condemned. But Old World infant baptism escapes any just censure.

I will try to flesh this out over the coming days and maybe weeks before moving on to non-Catholic misgivings about our devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, calling the pope Holy Father in light of that passage in Matthew. Prayers to saints will be lumped in with discussion of Our Lady. Catholics don't believe in salvation by faith without works.

Okay...Hope to get going this weekend again. Any further concerns about mode of baptism before we move forward?

3DOP

PS: Oh...I see there is also objection to the office of cardinal and "archbishop". I won't forget, Yep!

Edited July 27, 2012 by 3DOP

[Damien the Leper]

No. Not even in the sense that comes from Corinthians (?) that is quoted by missionaries to demonstrate some "falling away".

What is fascinating to me is the necessity of the Restoration to restore part of what was lost and the need for another great moment of Revelation to complete the Restoration and move us forward. Perhaps this place will help us to lay down the dying horses that are apostasy and restoration and to the next level which God has set in place for us.

Still...these are just musings.

[pmccombs1]

What evidences exist for or against these claims?

I've been rather influenced by the evidences suggested by Bart Ehrman, Walter Bauer, and their ilk, that there probably wasn't one original Christian church to begin with, but numerous diverse manifestations of Christianity. Hence no orthodoxy (right belief) and therefore no apostasy, at least no apostasy from "original" Christianity. The notion of orthodoxy seems to be an invention of the dominant Christian sect in the early centuries AD, and has been a great development in allowing us to argue about stuff.

I have no doubt that there's a lot of really great apologia mounted against those gentlemen, and particularly in Dr. Ehrman's case whose writings are becoming somewhat popular.

[3DOP]

No. Not even in the sense that comes from Corinthians (?) that is quoted by missionaries to demonstrate some "falling away".

What is fascinating to me is the necessity of the Restoration to restore part of what was lost and the need for another great moment of Revelation to complete the Restoration and move us forward. Perhaps this place will help us to lay down the dying horses that are apostasy and restoration and to the next level which God has set in place for us.

Still...these are just musings.

Interesting speculation Valentinus. You are suggesting that notions of "apostasy" and "restoration" are becoming obsolete? Yes?

I have been explaining for well over ten years to LDS about why I cannot believe in an apostasy. Do you think the apostasy discussion can somehow be by-passed?

I understand you qualified your opinions as "just musings". I appreciate your sharing.

[CASteinman]

Interesting speculation Valentinus. You are suggesting that notions of "apostasy" and "restoration" are becoming obsolete? Yes?

I have been explaining for well over ten years to LDS about why I cannot believe in an apostasy. Do you think the apostasy discussion can somehow be by-passed?

The discussion can always be bypassed but the LDS Church will continue to teach that there was an apostasy and a restoration as long as it remains faithful to the covenants and revelations given to it. This is not negotiable because it is a bedrock matter. Take this away and the LDS Church has no particularly good reason to exist.

Edited July 28, 2012 by CASteinman

[3DOP]

I've been rather influenced by the evidences suggested by Bart Ehrman, Walter Bauer, and their ilk, that there probably wasn't one original Christian church to begin with, but numerous diverse manifestations of Christianity. Hence no orthodoxy (right belief) and therefore no apostasy, at least no apostasy from "original" Christianity. The notion of orthodoxy seems to be an invention of the dominant Christian sect in the early centuries AD, and has been a great development in allowing us to argue about stuff.

I have no doubt that there's a lot of really great apologia mounted against those gentlemen, and particularly in Dr. Ehrman's case whose writings are becoming somewhat popular.

Hi pmccombs1,

Welcome to the discussion and to the message board. I am Catholic pmccombs1, and I have observed with dismay on a number of occasions when an LDS reader, fresh from a good dose of Ehrman, seems delighted with how his conclusions make for much discomort to an Evangelical view of Scripture. I am not particularly enamoured with the way Evangelicals use Scripture either, but I have continuously thought that it seems difficult to see that the only casualty of Ehrman's work, would be the Evangelical view of Scripture. What you are presenting now gives me a strong suspicion that Ehrman's method of evaluating the life and death of Jesus Christ would result in the virtual end of all faith in divine realities. I would appreciate your opinion of what I am about to present.

I would personally find it difficult to reconcile the New Testament record with a belief that denies "one original Christian church", and on that basis disallows "apostasy from 'original' Christianity." I note that Steinman and I seem to be in agreement upon that vital premise.

Ehrman would seem to be first a naturalist. Does he believe in the virgin birth, or the bodily resurrection of Christ? If not, it would follow that he would lack confidence in Christ's words to St. Peter that "upon "this rock, I will build my church". He would probably not really take seriously the promises of Christ to His disciples that they should not fear His departure because of the promise of the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, who is indeed said to have come at Pentecost in response to the prayers of the disciples. When at this point the Scriptures make the point that they were all of one heart and soul, Ehrman would probably see it as wishful thinking. Later, practical problems arise between the Gentile and Jewish Christians. The leaders meet and arrive at a charitable compromise whereby the Gentiles would for the benefit of their Jewish brethren, make alterations in their diet. St. Peter delivers an oration proclaiming how God knew His work from the beginning, and that what was decided was conjointly confirmed by the Holy Ghost. Letters are sent to the churches scattered abroad and it seems like there is every indication that they are expected to be obeyed, as coming from lawful church authority. Presumably, Ehrman would see this as a highly polished effort to cover up the inability of the Apostles of Jesus to govern their converts.

As I said, I am Catholic so I think the Church continued. I do not cite the passage from Mt. 16 about Peter as the Rock to prove that the Church never apostatized. I am satisfied that Mormons have an adequate reply to that argument. But whether I were Mormon or Catholic or Protestant, I would not be satisfied to believe that the Church was still-born at Pentecost. I could not be satisfied that the Holy Ghost never came as promised to make the disciples one with Christ, as Christ is one with the Father. I don't believe that the record of what happened in the decades after Christ is explainable apart from God's promises kept and prophecies fulfilled.

Apparently, Ehrman successfully convinces himself of an interpretation of the book of Acts which denies Christiani unity. It would be even easier for him to ignore the unity of the post-apostolic generation of Christians, built on the Rock, growing in numbers, while over-emphasizing the groups that pop up making similar, but untenable claims. That Marcion and Valentinus and Montanus and a dozen others should gain followings that were independent of the Church of the Apostles doesn't undo the unity of the true Church as is clear from a reading of Ac. 15 that takes the words found there to be genuine, sincere, and true.

I have thought to have partially succeeded here in this thread in making a case for why, even if I held to Restoration theology, the apostasy should be pushed back a few generations. I do not see how I could possibly, if I were still that hypothetical Restorationist, hold a view that says there never was "one original Christian church". I think it would destroy Restoration theology along with every kind of "Christianity" except that which would use Jesus' words for a political and social program exclusively. It wouldn't be anything I would die for. Come to think of it, it wouldn't even be anything I would tithe for! Who would be willing to go on a mission to sell a message that is aired on TV and radio 24 hours a day anyway? I guess Ehrman's view would even be the death of even that most pale and watery Christianity.

Personally, I think the more plausible explanation for the rise and continued vitality of the Christian religion is best explained as written for us in the Second of Peter:

For we have not by following artificial fables, made known to you the power, and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we were eyewitnesses of his greatness. For he received from God the Father, honour and glory: this voice coming down to him from the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. And this voice we heard brought from heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount. And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

---2 Peter 2:16-19

Regards,

3DOP

Edited July 28, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Do infants who enter this world have a guarantee, because of their inability to commit any actual sins, of heaven?

Our answer to this question depends greatly on how we perceive heaven. Is sinlessness enough?

For fallen mankind, sinlessness is so unattainable as to make some mistakenly assume that if anyone were able to be entirely forgiven for all sins or to have never committed any, that this would be a guarantee of heaven. I propose that in addition to never being unaccountable for doing our bad things, we have to in some way gain credit for doing good things too.

Contrary to the doctrine in the New World, which was opposed and correctly so, in the Book of Mormon, in the Old World the teaching of the fate of dead unbaptized babies disallows that they could suffer the bodily pains of Hell.

Beginning with the birth of the first two boys, one of whom killed his brother, there is trouble in childbirth. It hurt. Why is it so painful? Surely there is some purpose here? No? It doesn't ordinarily hurt like that to do any other normal healthy human functions. Jesus gives a hint in John 3, where He explains that something is wrong with the first birth. One person asked him if he had to get back and do it over when Jesus told him, "Ye must be born again." No, that way of being born is a continuing reminder of our need to be "born again". Jesus does not place our problems at the moment of recognizing right and wrong. He says our first birth is problematic.

This helps us to see why there are ceremonies in the Old Testament for infant boys. Interestingly, the ceremony of circumcision is done to the reproductive organ of the male. While the girls are going to enjoy pain in childbirth, the boys don't escape being eight days old before they experience a pain that will enable them to enjoy the privileges of life in the Abrahamic covenant. Without circumcision, the manchild's prospects are grim indeed:

An infant of eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations: he that is born in the house, as well as the bought servant shall be circumcised, and whosoever is not of your stock: And my covenant shall be in your flesh for a perpetual covenant. The male, whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant.

---Gen 17:12-14

A lot of people rationalize that since an infant has nothing to do with his decision to be baptized, that it cannot be of any value to him. But would not the same principle apply to infant circumcision? God tells Abraham that the uncircumcised baby boy is a covenant breaker! How can this be? How can God blame or give credit to babies because of what the parents do?

I would suggest an answer to this apparent injustice with an observation that it is God's will that none of us save ourselves. Our destinies are inextricably tied with our near and distant acquaintances and associations. The instruments of our salvation besides Christ and the Sacraments, are people. None of us are without any good people who enter our lives to increase our intimacy with God. Of all the good people, Old World Catholics are taught that it is ordained by God's plan that loving mothers and fathers can be thanked in later years for having brought us to baptism when we could not bring ourselves to keep God's covenant. We see a precedent for just such an exercise of influence upon a child by faithful parents in the Old Covenant, and not surprisingly, the opportunity is expanded under the New Covenant. There is no place to be proud about "deciding" to be baptized as a baby, and maybe for that reason alone, it is the best way to be baptized!

More to come, and of course, I welcome comments as to what is being immediately presented.

3DOP

Edited July 28, 2012 by 3DOP