Was There An Apostacy In The Early Christian Church?

[robuchan]

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.

This is how I view it. As a believing LDS, the apostasy and restoration seemed like very logical concepts to me. As a non-believer, as I look at the Bible with fresh eyes, I don't see the LDS view that there was a strong, central church with a consistent organizational structure, well defined practices for ordinances, priesthood transfering, consistently applied doctrine, etc. So there was never anything to apostatize from.

[3DOP]

The psalmist, who most affirm was King David, affirms the doctrine which leads to the necessity of infant circumcision and baptism:

For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me.

---Ps. 50 (51):7

Assuredly he does not mean that the marriage act is sinful. Nor that he was conceived of a sinful union because this was the son of Jesse who is the author. We know of David's parentage. Rather, it appears to be an admission that he was born with something already in opposition to the good will of God. But was David unique, or might not this same penitential cry be the lot of all the poor children of Eve? It seems to Catholics like a universal condition rather than some phenomenon unique to the Psalmist. Of course, it is not his fault. It is not actual sin, but what is distinguished as original sin. He was born with this condition as inherited from our first parents. There is something not right with the first birth. We need "reborn".

Edited July 29, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Yep. Hey. I hope all is well with you and you can pop in again soon. I may not have addressed exactly the mistakes that you think the Catholic Church has made.

In returning to the opening post, I note that one of the objections to Catholic teaching is expressed as follows:

Concept of Infants not being innocent at birth

I have attempted to address this idea while discussing the reasons for infant baptism instead of separating the issues. Your phrasing of the issue is important because it goes to the heart of God's justice. It may be that you are unaware that the Church in the Old World has never taught that infants have committed sins. It further teaches that the universal condition which prevents a soul's deifiication is through no fault of a baby. What has been called "original sin" is not even the fault of a grownup. That is why the condition can be remedied without the consent of the child through baptism. If without consent, the child has contracted original sin, it follows that without consent, the child may be justly relieved of original sin.

It seems to me like part of the problem is that in our evaluation of God's way of justice, we fail to recognize how He deals with us as individuals, and how He deals with us members of a common race. Naturally, we tend to be in favor of God's ways when it works in our favor. We tend to find displeasure with it when it works against us. For example, most of us see no difficulty with the idea that God should forgive us because of the actions of the Second Adam, Jesus Christ. We do not perceive anything out of order with the idea that for our benefit, the atoning work of one, Christ, can save many. But we quickly forget that the reason why such a form of forgiveness is consistent with God's ways, is precisely because the same principle has already worked against us through Adam:

For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.

---I Cor. 15:21, 22

We will die in Adam or live in Christ. It isn't that Catholics attach unfair blame to an infant at birth. It is just a simple recognition of the situation. Our salvation or loss thereof is determined by whether we remain a child of Adam, or are reborn as children of God.

If I am not mistaken, Mormons even hold that Christ's atonement is applied to newborns. Why? Why does Christ's atonement apply to newborns if they are innocent as you say? Because they have to be made innocent, that's why! Our disagreement is not so fundamental as perhaps appears on the surface. Mormons and Catholics agree that only in Christ are newborns innocent. Our only difference is that Catholics hold that Christ taught that it is through the Sacrament of baptism that this "original guilt" or "original sin", or "condition", as I have called it, is remedied.

Furthermore, as I have pointed out before, the "punishment" for original sin is not nearly as bad as most people think. It isn't a burning fiery Hell. It just means deprivation of the beatific vision. That means that they won't be able to contemplate the infinite God for all eternity. But I hear a lot of people saying that they think something like that sounds boring anyway! It may be that Heaven isn't "everybody's cup of tea". I don't mean irreverence. I am convinced that the human soul can never be satisfied with anything less than the vision of God. They don't appreciate what they will be missing, but many if not most souls have no interest whatever in spending eternity like that. We are assured that God will have a just place for every immortal soul commensurate with the desires and perfections of the individual soul. We are further assured that God will not violate anyone's freedom in this matter. Even for those who may end up in Hell, it isn't like they would find Heaven to be a very pleasant alternative anyway. If we don't know exactly what happens, we are confident that the good God will take care of all the babies.

Later next week, perhaps I can offer some ideas on why I might be wrong. Yes, there are some Catholics who argue that all babies go straight to heaven, with or without baptism. I tend not to agree, but I respect their views. For my part, it seems necessary to defend the "worst case scenario."

A Blessed Lord's Day to all on this Ninth Sunday after Pentecost in the Catholic Church Calendar, also the Feast of St. Martha, who received our Lord into her home!

3DOP

[pmccombs1]

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: ---2 Peter 2:16-19

Regards,

3DOP

Hello, 3DOP. I am an agnostic, and also a very active, practicing Mormon. It is good to meet a Catholic here in these forums; I love the Catholic Social Teaching, particularly where it touches on ecnonomics. I believe you Catholics have it right, and that we would all do well to pay attention. We Mormons, with all our alleged inspiration, are increasingly left with second-bests, except (as you may know) when it comes to shopping malls. And then you have G. K. Chesterton, which is something beyond comparison. I'm sure Chesterton, were he alive today, would have some choice words for Dr. Ehrman.

But as I said, I think Ehrman's story is plausible. You said:

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.

But Ehrman doesn't support the LDS view anyway, beyond the simple assertion of "corruption of scripture." What Ehrman presents ought to be just as troubling to the LDS view, for it would seem the "plain and precious things" were not so much taken from the scriptures as they were put into them. And why, for instance, would Joseph Smith have kept the story of Jesus and the adulteress in his so-called "inspired version" when it is apparent (to Ehrman) that the story was clearly a later addition? Why couln't Joseph identify the obvious corruptions?

Ehrman presents the paradoxical Orthodox view of Jesus--mortal man, yet divine--in the context of reactionary theology. On the one hand, the "proto-orthodox" had to contend with Marcionites who denied that Jesus manifested any mortal aspects at all. On the other, there were Jewish Christians who denied claims of divinity. The Jesus of the New Testament, for Ehrman, must be a creation of these proto-orthodox Church Fathers, and we Mormons have inherited that to a great extent. We are perhaps more orthodox than even we imagine. That is what my dose of Ehrman left me thinking.

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.

You're perfectly right, of course. If I say I think Ehrman is onto something, I also must be admitting that probably Joseph had nothing to restore. That's true. And yet I still find Joseph, and what he brought about, remarkably compelling. I love to believe in that guy sometimes. Of course, I find the Catholic church, through all its ages, remarkably compelling and beautiful too. What am I to do?

What are we here for, if not to struggle with faith?

[3DOP]

I think there is a Gospel theme that is often forgotten and passed over because of overly individualistic assumptions about how souls are brought to God. A too common "hyper-individualism" makes infant baptism unintelligible. I said:

...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.

---post 125

With this principle in mind I offer for your consideration the following passage to ponder, which we can perhaps break down later this week if not today:

And again he entered into Capharnaum after some days. And it was heard that he was in the house, and many came together, so that there was no room; no, not even at the door; and he spoke to them the word. And they came to him, bringing one sick of the palsy, who was carried by four. And when they could not offer him unto him for the multitude, they uncovered the roof where he was; and opening it, they let down the bed wherein the man sick of the palsy lay. And when Jesus had seen their faith, he saith to the sick of the palsy: Son, thy sins are forgiven thee.

---Mark 2:1-5

3DOP

Edited July 30, 2012 by 3DOP

[Anijen]

In my opinion the apostasy started early. The Apostles were constantly correcting the saints from bringing in their past beliefs and new beliefs as well, causing a mixing of doctrine. Although I am not Catholic I believe its own history of evolving, is a history that shows a paradigm of change from within and from outside influences. The Catholic church claims the first Bishop of Rome (Pope) was Peter, yet did not institute child baptism until much later. Other changes that had crept into (and out of) the church were simony, indulgence, lay investiture, transubstantiation etc. I am not an expert on the Catholic Church but I feel I am on the topic of lay investiture. I am absolutely convinced that in the early history that kings chose many of the Archbishops and popes and felt it was there duty to do so. Many of these kings chose friends (hunting buddies). I know 3DOP will disagree and I think he is a top notch guy and very knowledgeable, yet from all my reading (and most of my reading are from catholic sources) he will not be able to convince me otherwise.

These changes IMO are signs, but are not evidence of apostasy. Now change in of itself is not proof there was an apostasy. To me the attrition of priesthood holders was the key to apostasy. And as the scriptures state there must be a restoration made.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[thesometimesaint]

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:

---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

Infants whom die before the age of accountability are guaranteed return to Heavenly Father by the mercy of Christ. They have no need of repentance and baptism because they do not know good from evil.

For in as much as men do good works they shall in no wise lose their reward. While we can not work our way into Heaven God doesn't want us to be bumps on a log either. For faith without works is dead.

The problems of childbirth come from the shape of women's hips. We will be punished for our own sins(childbirth is not a sin), and not for Adams transgression.

It is Gods' will that we all repent, that all that believe in Jesus the Christ shall be saved. Works alone won't get us there. For works without faith are also dead being alone.

The best way is to come unto Christ of your own volition, and free choice. To endure in Christ to the end of your mortal life. Babies by definition have no choice.

Always happy to read about what others believe.

Edited July 30, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Alan]

The Catholic position is the only one consistent enough to challenge the idea of a restoration. Protestantism really has no legitimacy from an authority/priesthood perspective.

In my view the apostacy was gradual and almost invisible to those affected at the time. For whatever reason the church hierachy were wiped out and only local leaders were left. These were Bishops and Priests(also deacons of course). The Bishop is the president of the Aaronic priesthood and has the keys associated with that function. He can ordain men to offices in the Aaronic priesthood without reference to any higher ecclesiastical authority. So that is what happened. The church functioned for some time, probably, a few hundred years, under Aaronic administration. And that is what we see in the christian church of the centuries immediately following the departure of the apostles - Bishops and Priests. We still see this pattern today.

The problem of course was that with no higher order of priesthood, the Gift of the Holy Ghost could not be conferred. The Spirit could inspire and assist all who needed help and were striving to live the best they could, but constant companionship was not possible and that was the achillies heel. False doctrines and practices were more difficult to detect without the HG and things gradually deteriorated. Eventually, things got so far off track that the priesthood line was broken and the authority lost; thus requiring a restoration.

We should not reject the idea of an Aaronic priesthood church administration just because that would seem impossible now. The old testament "church" was administered in such a way for many centuries.

[3DOP]

In my opinion the apostasy started early. The Apostles were constantly correcting the saints from bringing in their past beliefs and new beliefs as well, causing a mixing of doctrine. Although I am not Catholic I believe its own history of evolving, is a history that shows a paradigm of change from within and from outside influences. The Catholic church claims the first Bishop of Rome (Pope) was Peter, yet did not institute child baptism until much later. Other changes that had crept into (and out of) the church were simony, indulgence, lay investiture, transubstantiation etc. I am not an expert on the Catholic Church but I feel I am on the topic of lay investiture. I am absolutely convinced that in the early history that kings chose many of the Archbishops and popes and felt it was there duty to do so. Many of these kings chose friends (hunting buddies). I know 3DOP will disagree and I think he is a top notch guy and very knowledgeable, yet from all my reading (and most of my reading are from catholic sources) he will not be able to convince me otherwise.

These changes IMO are signs, but are not evidence of apostasy. Now change in of itself is not proof there was an apostasy. To me the attrition of priesthood holders was the key to apostasy. And as the scriptures state there must be a restoration made.

Hi Anijen,

Thanks for the kind words. I can agree with more of what you said than you might think. I'll list the disagreements too.

1) Yes, in the missions there was and always will be a need to teach correct doctrine to the new converts, making sure that practises and teachings contrary to the Gospel are eliminated. I agree that this was necessary.

Maybe one of these days I'll share some random passages from the Martyrology. This is a collected documentation of the acts of the martyrs of the first three centuries commissioned I believe by Pope St. Gregory the Great. If I could be convinced that the martyrs of the first three centuries rejected Catholic dogma and practice, I would reject it as well. In post #94 I explain the reason I have to deny an apostasy in the first three centuries. Simony and indulgences are literally centuries away. I am explaining how I chose to be a Catholic Christian instead of an LDS Christian. I don't think practical legalisms, philosophical objections, and theological technicalities matter very much when souls are coming to Christ faster than the Roman Empire can execute them until the Empire finds itself to be populated by Christians.

God is going to remove the Holy Ghost and the priesthood, gradually or suddenly, when souls are dying for testimony of Christ and refusing to worship idols? It is the blood of the martyrs that wins my mind and my will. I will to believe whatever they believed. Whatever church they affiliated with, count me on board. That is how I became Catholic. The true priesthood belonged to Aaron and his family. We know it because his rod bore fruit. I am looking for Aaron's rod today, and I doubt not that I have found it both because of the abundant fruit of the centuries, but down to the present day.

I do not imagine to present clever and irrefutable ideas. My ideas are merely plausible as are yours. But I am looking for Aaron's rod. I am looking for fruit to indicate where the authority and power of God resides. I am satisfied that the popular acceptance of the Christian Gospel by pagan Rome is that fruit. It was a miracle, won by the blood of disciples of Christ willing to die for their faith, which is more potent testimony to me than a dead stick bearing a blossom. I am not open to any so-called apostasy that is forced to deny good fruit while presenting technical difficulties about church hierarchy and disputed doctrines. Such controversies are irresolvable by themselves. But a corrupt tree does not bear good fruit. I am completely enthused if I may be privileged to be grafted in as a branch on the tree spoken of by St. Clement, whereas an apostasy theory would make me disdain that which is preeminently desirable.

---3DOP, Post #94

2) I do not see any reason to doubt St. Peter's presence as the first Roman bishop, and I would be interested in your refutation of why I say that it is difficult to prove that infant baptism is an error. (I am still working on that one by the way.) Tertullian specifically objects to the practice around 200 AD showing that it must have been at least a second century practice. I don't know how I would go about proving conclusively that infant baptism was or was not practised in the New Testament. much less that it came along "much later".

3) The Church has always condemned simony. It is a serious sin. We believe that enemies of God and the Church have sometimes made their influence felt. It seems to me that without destroying the wheat, those tares have died out long, long ago, and this problem has been virtually eradicated in the Church. We do not canonize simoniacs. In fact, we think they are punished rather harshly!

4) I begin every day with the intention of gaining all the indulgences that I can. I would be more than willing to defend indulgences after getting through Yep's list. But in any event, I highly doubt that the practice of granting indulgences was known in the first three centuries. That does come along much later. For now, I am not trying to say that there was NEVER an apostasy. I am just trying to get Latter-day Saints to see the difficulty of saying it happened so quickly.

5) I agree that for prudential reasons, during certain periods, the Church has had to allow political leaders to influence the selection of bishops. It is always a delicate problem. Today in Communist China, lest an atheistic government should renew its hostilities against the faithful, the Church carefully and diplomatically refuses to accept bishops chosen by the government. I will defer to and your studies of this subject as it happened in the West. Did not good Catholics seek ways to eliminate the practise? The history of the Church includes problems from within and outside of the Church, but you wouldn't say that this is a problem now would you?

How can we explain that an apostate church continuously has the vitality to renew itself when undesirable influences gain a foothold? I am more inclined to see these kinds of problems as coming from the presence of the tares sown with the wheat by our enemy. Jesus did tell us to be careful about ripping out the weeds too quickly. I was thinking that it was in the 11th Century when the pope, Gregory VII, also known as Hildebrand had a showdown with a strong German monarch about this. Am I mistaken? In any case, to protect the faithful, the Church may err in such matters prudentially by being too firm or weak, but it takes much wisdom to foresee the best ways to deal with meddling monarchs. Overall, I do not see how our record in this matter can be brought against us. The Church has never taught the temporal powers that we want them to meddle.

Anyway, Ainjen, Not to be lovey dovey, but I think you're a top notch guy too! The best thing that could ever happen is if all of us somehow get to be in heaven together, notwithstanding present differences. The next best thing would be to believe enough alike to able to go to church in unity today. I understand that it seems impossible, but little by little, it is to those ends that I devote myself in these discussions. God bless all of us here and give us such desire to be one in this life and the next, that with His grace we find a way.

3DOP

Edited July 31, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

3DOP:

Infants whom die before the age of accountability are guaranteed return to Heavenly Father by the mercy of Christ. They have no need of repentance and baptism because they do not know good from evil.

For in as much as men do good works they shall in no wise lose their reward. While we can not work our way into Heaven God doesn't want us to be bumps on a log either. For faith without works is dead.

The problems of childbirth come from the shape of women's hips. We will be punished for our own sins(childbirth is not a sin), and not for Adams transgression.

It is Gods' will that we all repent, that all that believe in Jesus the Christ shall be saved. Works alone won't get us there. For works without faith are also dead being alone.

The best way is to come unto Christ of your own volition, and free choice. To endure in Christ to the end of your mortal life. Babies by definition have no choice.

Always happy to read about what others believe.

Hi thesometimesaint. I hope you're doing well.

Thanks for your reply.

I don't believe childbirth is a sin, but there is pain in childbirth because of the fall according to Genesis 3. I wasn't analyzing the anatomical reason for childbirth pain but the theological reason for the condition. I agree with a lot of what you said, but I don't think it is enough to lead to your conclusion against the baptizing of infants. It seems like you're ignoring some things. It doesn't seem to me like you could agree with Gen. 17 where Abraham is informed that the eight day old manchild who is uncircumcised has "broken my covenant". I am trying to reconcile all of the data. Can you see how if I adopted your position it would make nonsense out of infant circumcision as described to Abraham? I didn't make up Gen. 17. It doesn't seem right in a way. I follow your logic.

But the Scriptures warn that God's ways and thoughts are different than ours. I wouldn't have made it up like this! I was a Baptist 25 years ago. I made fun of the "baby sprinklers". But when I saw the connection and implications of infant circumcision to baptism, I had to adjust my thinking by pondering what all this could mean. It won't do much good if we have a knee jerk overreaction against terminology that describes "covenant breaking eight day olds". We can't do that. We have to think about it with faith in a good and just God. We have to ask how can this baby ceremony be so important as to mention covenant breaking in the context of babies? When I pondered infant circumcision, a lot changed for me. I realized that the principle by which I believed Christ died for me has a much wider application. We are negatively and positively effected in God's providence by many many people in our lives. But none more so than our parents. If we get to heaven we will thank Christ primarily, but He will have had many disciples who we can thank for their parts in helping us make our way. This line of thinking makes infant baptism much more reasonable and appropriate than I had stubbornly presumed for so many years.

You don't think it is just if someone is punished because of the sins of someone else. Neither do I, I promise you and I do not believe we are. But we are all negatively effected by the sins of others. The effects of Adam's fall is called original sin. Biologically, Adam's children are born "after his kind". We are not originally born Christlike. We are first born "Adamlike". Adam's original sin has a negative effect on us just as Jesus "original righteousness" has a positive effect on us if we are born again into His family. I don't understand how we can have a form of justice that allows for the good behavior of Jesus (the second Adam) to have a positive effect on our condition, if we deny that the bad behavior of Adam can have any negative effect.

I think I better stop right there thesometimesaint. I understand what you are saying. I truly do. I am sorry to have to be contrary but I just don't see how to reconcile your apparent position with the fall of Adam, infant circumcision, or with the kind of "representative justice" that awards sinners in Christ eternal life. I hope you stay tuned thesometimesaint as I try to clarify and flesh out infant baptism for you all as I am compelled to understand it. I don't hate babies. Catholics love babies! Lutherans and Anglicans and Presbyterians love babies too! We just want to make sense out of ALL of what has come down to us traditionally and scripturally. Take care tss. Thanks again for your thoughts.

Sincerely,

3DOP

Edited July 31, 2012 by 3DOP

[thesometimesaint]

3DOP:

I'm doing well. Thank you for asking.

Unless God changed women's anatomy childbirth has always involved quite a bit of pain. Nor do I believe all pain is necessarily the result of sin. Though certainly sin can produce pain.

By ancient custom circumcision was done pretty early in a male infants life, as a sign of the covenant. As a Christian I really don't see the connection between infant male circumcision and Christian baptism. Baptism applies to male and female alike, after repentance.

I too believe our mortal ways of doing things are a bit different than Gods' ways. However I do think that God is logically consistent.

I would hope that no one would make light of someones deeply held religious beliefs. I have profound respect for Catholic beliefs, even if I don't hold the same beliefs. I am personally embarrassed when a Saint does make light of others beliefs.

Sorry I just don't see the connection. To me an infant is incapable if sin. Thus has no reason the repent. To me baptism is for the remission of personal sins, and not what Adam(and his descendents other than myself) did or didn't do. My parents were good people( I wish they were still with us), and did the best they knew how, but I came to my religion by my own choice at 20 years old.

Is it an infants fault they can't understand something. In LDS Theology a sin is when we knowingly go against Gods' commands. An infant knowingly doesn't do anything, beyond autonomic nervous response. They are incapable of sin. Though everyone born will suffer the mortal consequences of Adams transgression, God has made ample provision through the Resurrection to take the sting of physical death away. See 1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

I don't believe infants are capable of sin. So it isn't a matter of representative justice.

I believe all good people of whatever faith, or no faith at all, love babies. I believe God holds a special place in his heart for them. For such is the Kingdom of God.

Always enjoy our discussions.

[3DOP]

The Catholic position is the only one consistent enough to challenge the idea of a restoration. Protestantism really has no legitimacy from an authority/priesthood perspective.

In my view the apostacy was gradual and almost invisible to those affected at the time. For whatever reason the church hierachy were wiped out and only local leaders were left. These were Bishops and Priests(also deacons of course). The Bishop is the president of the Aaronic priesthood and has the keys associated with that function. He can ordain men to offices in the Aaronic priesthood without reference to any higher ecclesiastical authority. So that is what happened. The church functioned for some time, probably, a few hundred years, under Aaronic administration. And that is what we see in the christian church of the centuries immediately following the departure of the apostles - Bishops and Priests. We still see this pattern today.

The problem of course was that with no higher order of priesthood, the Gift of the Holy Ghost could not be conferred. The Spirit could inspire and assist all who needed help and were striving to live the best they could, but constant companionship was not possible and that was the achillies heel. False doctrines and practices were more difficult to detect without the HG and things gradually deteriorated. Eventually, things got so far off track that the priesthood line was broken and the authority lost; thus requiring a restoration.

We should not reject the idea of an Aaronic priesthood church administration just because that would seem impossible now. The old testament "church" was administered in such a way for many centuries.

Hi Alan.

I have not seen this approach to the question before. You have obviously given this question serious thought.

I wonder if I could agree that this kind of apostasy could have been "almost invisible to those affected at the time"? Could the Latter-day Church have its apostles die out similarly? It doesn't seem like it. The reason is because the Latter-day Church places a heavy emphasis upon the continuing need to fill an apostolic office. We probably agree then that the early Christians were not alarmed to wake up one morning and realize that there were no more apostles.

I think I would have to argue that the reason for this is that the Apostles themselves not only failed to ordain successors, but failed to reveal to their disciples that new apostles were an essential necessity to the fulness of the Gospel. It appears to me that no one had any hint that any office beyond that of the episcopate was necessary. Surely the new Christians noticed that they were getting all bishops and no apostles? I suggest that the best explanation for the fact of its being "almost invisible" is not that they hadn't noticed what was happening. Rather, it was that no one had been taught the interpretation of Acts 1 as Restorationists understand it. They expected for the bishops to succeed the apostles and when they did, there was no cause for alarm.

I have to go now...I have a question or two...I don't mean to be critical only of a well-thought out position. It takes into consideration a lot of factors that shows we read some of the history similarly.

Anyway, I hope to get back to you soon, Alan. Thanks for a good contribution to the discussion.

3DOP

[Verum]

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

I think its problematic to point to changing ordinances as evidence for apostacy. The church has also dramatically changed the nature of some very important ordinances, such as those in the temple.

Besides, if the prophet today announced that all babies must be baptized, wouldn't we all be obliged to sustain it?

Edited August 1, 2012 by Verum

[Alan]

That the Apostolic office was lost is a matter of history. That the apostles did ordain others to take the place of fallen colleagues is also a matter of history. Judas was replaced, Paul was called as an apostle, and it appears that James the brother of Jesus was also called to the Quorum after first serving as the Presiding Bishop. That apostles were being being called at a time when others were being martyred is surely no coincidence. There is also the case of the Seventy. These were referred to in some early christian documents as the "seventy apostles" and worked under apostolic authority as they do today. These were, therefore, in authority over local leaders such as Bishops. It is also worth noting, of course, that John the revelator was still at large during the bishopric of Clement, Linus etc in Rome and would therefore have been in authority over them and all other bishops.

I agree that the indeffinate perpetuation of the apostolic quorum would have been very difficult in those times, particularly in view of the vicious persecution faced by the church. I believe the apostacy was inevitable in these circumstances and was probably known in advance by the apostles. But it is understandable they didn't emphasise this when encouraging the saints. The Nephite prophets knew the Nephite nation and church was ultimately doomed but didn't draw attention to it.

[Ahab]

That the Apostolic office was lost is a matter of history. That the apostles did ordain others to take the place of fallen colleagues is also a matter of history. Judas was replaced, Paul was called as an apostle, and it appears that James the brother of Jesus was also called to the Quorum after first serving as the Presiding Bishop. That apostles were being being called at a time when others were being martyred is surely no coincidence. There is also the case of the Seventy. These were referred to in some early christian documents as the "seventy apostles" and worked under apostolic authority as they do today. These were, therefore, in authority over local leaders such as Bishops. It is also worth noting, of course, that John the revelator was still at large during the bishopric of Clement, Linus etc in Rome and would therefore have been in authority over them and all other bishops.

I agree that the indeffinate perpetuation of the apostolic quorum would have been very difficult in those times, particularly in view of the vicious persecution faced by the church. I believe the apostacy was inevitable in these circumstances and was probably known in advance by the apostles. But it is understandable they didn't emphasise this when encouraging the saints. The Nephite prophets knew the Nephite nation and church was ultimately doomed but didn't draw attention to it.

They mentioned it several times, though, both in the East and the West, and those were probably only some of the instances they mentioned it, in writing. Undoubtedly they would have mentioned it at least a few times while speaking publically in each ward (geographic area) too, and maybe even more times in some writings which people in those days lost or ignored because they didn't think they were worth holding onto.

[zerinus]

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.

I find it a lot easier to get excited about the Restoration than to worry about the Apostasy. Also, the Apostasy does not mean that Christianity was no good, or accomplished no good, or that faith was totally absent in the world. That is obviously not true. Faith existed; and where faith exists, however small, it can still accomplish great things. So the achievements and accomplishments of Christianity during the past two millennia is nothing to be sneezed at. But I find the future more exciting than the past, and the Restoration far more exciting than the Apostasy. When I read great scripture like the Book of Mormon and the other revelations that Joseph Smith received (with the promise of more to come), I can't help but be extremely excited about the Restoration.

[3DOP]

I find it a lot easier to get excited about the Restoration than to worry about the Apostasy. Also, the Apostasy does not mean that Christianity was no good, or accomplished no good, or that faith was totally absent in the world. That is obviously not true. Faith existed; and where faith exists, however small, it can still accomplish great things. So the achievements and accomplishments of Christianity during the past two millennia is nothing to be sneezed at. But I find the future more exciting than the past, and the Restoration far more exciting than the Apostasy. When I read great scripture like the Book of Mormon and the other revelations that Joseph Smith received (with the promise of more to come), I can't help but be extremely excited about the Restoration.

Hi Zerinus...

I appreciate your perspective.

As a Catholic, I don't worry about the Apostasy either, except if someone else cares to discuss it. Usually it involves evidential "symptoms" which are subject to plausible explanations from a Catholic premise.

Before I converted to the Catholic faith, I became familiar with LDS apologetics such as Offenders for a Word, by Daniel C. Peterson. Within that context, I am happy to consider Mormons to be Christians. Later, I became involved with a message board called Utah Lighthouse Ministry, (UTLM). UTLM was I believe founded by the Tanners whose work seemed superficial to me. In my opinion, LDS apologists ably deal with any polemics against the CoJCoLDS with which I am familiar.

On the other hand, I was informed that my Church was apostate. When the missionaries visited, they quickly turned to the Council of Nicea to establish the disharmony between biblical Christianity as they understood it, and the traditions of my faith. (I don't remember if I was Catholic yet at that point. It was close on the time though in 1995.) Just as I discerned that the work of the Tanners was superficial and unconvincing in the face of LDS apologetics, I find polemics against the Catholic faith similarly superficial. It seems to me that if Latter-day Saints used the same methods to defend the "Former-day Church" as they use to defend the "Latter-day Church", it would be impossible to demonstrate an apostasy.

That is why I stated in a previous post on this thread that the most convincing evidence for an apostasy would need to be a testimony of the Restoration. This business about mode of baptism and original sin and ecclesial hierarchies are technical objections that don't convince when one understands the history and theology.

So obviously I am not enthused about apostasy, but I am enthused about disabusing those who might have some misunderstandings that need cleared up. If anybody WANTS to not believe in an apostasy, I think I can be of assistance.

Regards,

3DOP

[Alan]

3DCP,

While I respect your position in defending the catholic claims, I think you must recognise that the catholic church of today bears little resemblence to the the christian church of the first or second centuries. And furthermore, the catholic church of past ages (especially during the time of Luther and others) was even worse. The catholic church (not just individual catholics) has been responsible for the deaths of many people who dared to disagree with it. Now, while this is not the catholic church of today it is certainly something that needs to be taken into account when considering both divine approval and authority.

Rival popes, even a female pope, sexual misbehaviour, false doctrine, murder and plunder are all hallmarks of the catholic church at various periods of it's existence. Indeed, it is very likely in my view that humankind would be more advanced in terms of technology and social structures if it wasn't for the spoiling tactics and supression exerted by the catholic church of the past.

So, a question. In your view, how did God's approval, inspiration, acknowledgement, and authorisation of the catholic church survive this period?

And another question - what of the Orthodox church?

[zerinus]

Sorry for the delay in replying. Nobody bumped the thread, and I nearly forgot about it.

Hi Zerinus...

I appreciate your perspective.

As a Catholic, I don't worry about the Apostasy either, except if someone else cares to discuss it. Usually it involves evidential "symptoms" which are subject to plausible explanations from a Catholic premise.

Before I converted to the Catholic faith, I became familiar with LDS apologetics such as Offenders for a Word, by Daniel C. Peterson. Within that context, I am happy to consider Mormons to be Christians. Later, I became involved with a message board called Utah Lighthouse Ministry, (UTLM). UTLM was I believe founded by the Tanners whose work seemed superficial to me. In my opinion, LDS apologists ably deal with any polemics against the CoJCoLDS with which I am familiar.

On the other hand, I was informed that my Church was apostate. When the missionaries visited, they quickly turned to the Council of Nicea to establish the disharmony between biblical Christianity as they understood it, and the traditions of my faith. (I don't remember if I was Catholic yet at that point. It was close on the time though in 1995.) Just as I discerned that the work of the Tanners was superficial and unconvincing in the face of LDS apologetics, I find polemics against the Catholic faith similarly superficial. It seems to me that if Latter-day Saints used the same methods to defend the "Former-day Church" as they use to defend the "Latter-day Church", it would be impossible to demonstrate an apostasy.

I agree that most Mormons are not adept at discussing the Apostasy; and any polemics against the Catholic Church are not justified. It is an elusive subject which is not easy to talk about. The reason for that is that the concept of the Apostasy tends to be a black and white concept. If Christianity is Apostate, then it became a tool of the devil and nothing good could have come of it; and if good did come of it, then it couldn't be Apostate. And the interesting thing about it is that a lot of good did come out of it. Christianity has been a force for good in the world throughout its history. That is even acknowledged in modern scripture (3 Nephi 16:6-7; 20:27). So we have to square that against the concept of the Apostasy; and Mormons are not always good at squaring that circle, and try to justify it by incorrect reasoning. The truth is that there was an apostasy; but it did not mean that Christianity became the church of the devil, as some might like to think.

That is why I stated in a previous post on this thread that the most convincing evidence for an apostasy would need to be a testimony of the Restoration. This business about mode of baptism and original sin and ecclesial hierarchies are technical objections that don't convince when one understands the history and theology.

Well there is no doubts that there was an Apostasy; but the strongest signs of it are not the ones you have mentioned. The strongest sign of it is that the Christian Church (call it Catholic if you like) is no longer being led by revelation from the Lord. However good and well intentioned the Pope and the Bishops might be, they lack that ability, which is the sign of God's true Church. They declare the canon of scripture closed. That is the greatest sign of the Apostasy.

So obviously I am not enthused about apostasy, but I am enthused about disabusing those who might have some misunderstandings that need cleared up. If anybody WANTS to not believe in an apostasy, I think I can be of assistance.

And I am so enthused about the Restoration that I would like to share it with anybody who wants to listen. If anybody is interested in that, I think that I can be of assistance. I think that is a far more interesting and exciting subject to dwell on than the Apostasy.

[3DOP]

3DCP,

While I respect your position in defending the catholic claims, I think you must recognise that the catholic church of today bears little resemblence to the the christian church of the first or second centuries. And furthermore, the catholic church of past ages (especially during the time of Luther and others) was even worse. The catholic church (not just individual catholics) has been responsible for the deaths of many people who dared to disagree with it. Now, while this is not the catholic church of today it is certainly something that needs to be taken into account when considering both divine approval and authority.

Rival popes, even a female pope, sexual misbehaviour, false doctrine, murder and plunder are all hallmarks of the catholic church at various periods of it's existence. Indeed, it is very likely in my view that humankind would be more advanced in terms of technology and social structures if it wasn't for the spoiling tactics and supression exerted by the catholic church of the past.

So, a question. In your view, how did God's approval, inspiration, acknowledgement, and authorisation of the catholic church survive this period?

And another question - what of the Orthodox church?

Alan. Hi again.

I am on record as saying that I believe that the Catholic Church of yesterday resembles the Catholic Church of today about as much as I at 56 years old, am recognizable as that little 5 pounder whose pictures I have seen. (I'll look tomorrow if time permits. I think I have said it on this thread. As though you are on pins and needles, heh.) Although I could doubt it is me from the looks of it all, there is some documentation that leads me to believe it is so. The Body of Christ is not dissimilar. It was born after the Ascension of the Saviour. It was a baby and must mature unto adulthood. I am satisfied that just as the seeds of me today were in that little baby under the billie lights, so the seeds of the Church have grown unto the living organism which is the Catholic Church with Pope Benedict XVI as successor of Peter.

As for allegations of murder...or adultery...I will be happy to discuss specific examples and the implications if you really think it is pertinent. But I believe I should probably try to meet the concerns raised by Yep first. I am hoping in the next day or three to draw some lessons from the healing of the man afflicted with palsy. That should be helpful as it relates to infant baptism.

I also had a question or two for you...but I think I am being called to tend the barbecue...London Broil is what we call what I am cooking tonight! Have you ever heard of that? Maybe you know it as Yankee Beef?

It was just placed before me...this hunk of marinating meat...I have to go...I won't forget your questions either, I promise. Good ones. God be with you, Alan.

Regards,

3DOP

Edited August 5, 2012 by 3DOP

[Anakin7]

Evidence of an aposatcy ?, all you need to do is open your telephone book to the Church/Church's section.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[3DOP]

Happy Barbecue Saturday...er...Commemoration of Sts. Tibertius and Susanna

The Romans did not indiscriminately kill anonymous Christians so soon as they were discovered. If there was a strategy, it was often to go after the leadership. There was also not a little bit of desire to loot the treasures of the Church. Popes and priests and deacons were often targeted. Earlier in the week the Roman Church refreshes our memories of the beheading of the holy bishop, Pope St. Sixtus II, who was beheaded during the reign of Emperor Valerian, 258 years after the birth of Christ. Six of Rome's seven deacons were also taken on this same day, the 6th of August. The seventh deacon was named Laurence, whose illustrious death is doubtless the reason why most of us have known many boys and men called "Larry".

After seeing his fellows fall, the prefect of Rome was mistakenly confident that the remaining deacon was willing to cooperate with the authorities:

The prefect's heart swelled with joy, and gloating over the gold he hoped soon to possess, he granted him [Laurence] a delay of three days...[to gather the precious sacred vessels the Christians of Rome were known to use for their ceremonies in their secret places]

---The Liturgical Year, Abbot Gueranger, O.S.B., Vol. 13, p. 303

Bitterly disappointed was the prefect when at the appointed time, St. Laurence arrived with "the riches and glory of Rome" in the persons of the lame and blind, the cripples and beggars who Laurence, as one of the city's deacons, had given material assistance. "Come with me and admire the incomparable riches of the sanctuary of our God", St. Laurence exhorted the prefect ushering them before his presence.

See, here is the gold which I promised you--gold of a kind that fire cannot touch or thief steal from you. Think not then that Christ is poor: Behold these choice pearls, these sparkling gems that adorn the temple...Behold, then, all our riches; take them: they will beautify the city of Romulus, they will increase the Emperor's treasures and enrich you yourself.

---ibid. p. 302

Laurence feared not the wrath of the tyrant, knowing he only had power to kill the body. And killing the body of the good deacon, it was with cunning ferocity. After having been racked and beaten, the holy martyr was stretched once more upon a gridiron, to be roasted over a bed of hot coals. Confused at the calm and patience of the martyr in his sufferings, his torturers, sensing that they were witnessing a miraculous death, were utterly abashed when the saint, joyful in anticipation of his approaching reward, suggests to them that they should turn him over, because only side of his body was cooked. The cult of St. Laurence grew and spread through the whole Church. In the liturgies of the East as in the West, the churches of antiquity remember to this day the triumph of St. Laurence as the harbinger of the death of paganism among the Romans.

Once the mother of false gods, but now the bride of Christ, O Rome, it is through Laurence thou art victorious! Thou hast conquered haughty monarchs and subjected nations to thine empire; but though thou hadst overcome barbarism, thy glory was incomplete till thou hadst vanquished the unclean idols. This was Laurence's victory, a combat bloody yet not tumultuous like that of Camillus or of Caesar; it was the contest of faith, wherein self is immolated, and death is overcome by death. What words, what praises suffice to celebrate such a death? How can I worthily sing so great a martyrdom?"

---ibid. p. 299, (the opening of the sublime poem of Prudentius, 4th Century)

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

In 286 AD, the gridiron was reheated for the purpose of extinguishing the most prominent Christians. St. Tibertius was to lie down before the flames and provide a repetition of the heroic death which had made the temples of the gods quake and the devils fear as the Gospel penetrated even into the highest strata of Roman society. In anger and desperation, the son of Chromatius, the prefect of Rome, was made subject to one of the severest tortures that could be devised.

It cannot be known certainly whether through the grace of perseverance the holy martyrs remained constant while suffering the heat of the burning coals, or whether like the Three Hebrews in Nebuchadnezzar's furnace, the flames did not cause pain. In either case it is a miracle. Tiburtius is reported to have cried out to his astonished executioners: "Learn that the God of the Christians is the only God, for these hot coals seem flowers to me." (ibid. p.325)

The unholy one who has inspired the tortures of God's children since the murder of Abel, must have known that his reign in Rome was almost over. St. Susanna had been chosen to be future empress and was to marry the son of Diocletian, the last persecuting emperor. Refusing marriage and the throne of the Empire, after torments, like many saints before her, she was beheaded on this day in the year 295.

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

I believe the Gospel because of eyewitness reports, and because of the success of the ministries of Christ's evangelists whose message spread like wildfires throughout the known world. That it is true is the best and most plausible explanation for the behaviors of the Apostles and their successors and disciples. Look at how much they must have believed. Unto death and the cross of Christ. I do not believe that a conspiratorial lie could have such an effect upon souls, or what motive there could be for the messengers, except Christ crucified and risen. The documented evidence for a whole calendar full of saints and martyrs, equally illustrious as the apostles in their fervor to save souls and die in the grace of Christ is no different. There had to be evidence for the heroic deaths of the bishops and leadership of the Christians of Rome. The bones of the martyrs, preserved by those who walked with them and knew them and loved them, are kept to this day in the holy city. New generations of Christians were born out of clear memories repeated by their mothers and fathers in the faith. What would make a beautiful high born maiden refuse the crown of the civilized world in exchange for having her head cut off? Questionable Lies? Embellished tales?

The vivid and faith affirming memory of the early centuries was scorched into the souls of citizens of Rome. Those of us who still identify as Roman Catholics, are grateful to have some share in that citizenship and rejoice in the same collective memories. I cannot ignore the continued progress of the Gospel as it eventually reached into the very palaces of the pagan emperors and wiped out the cult of pagan priests. On this Saturday, the day following the Feast of great St. Laurence, I am only recalling the astounding acts of a handful of the miraculously faithful. But the Church has preserved in its memory a calendar of heroes, a pageant of events, and a gallery of great saints which if followed is abundant with fuel to feed the flames of faith, hope, and love. The fire that burned St. Laurence glows a little more fervently in my bosom today than yesterday, and by God's grace, more tomorrow than today. I know well how passionate fervor once enjoyed, must be renewed. Like others for almost 2,000 years, I look to Rome and that is the place where I return time and again to be reminded that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of my faith. That is why the Universal (Catholic) Church is also Roman.

I started this post recalling that summer Saturdays often involve the grill at my house. If it seems irreverent to jest of "Barbecue Saturday", I cannot help but recall the jocular retort of St. Laurence to his executioners to turn him over since he was already cooked on the one side. Assuredly, most of my readers here cannot quite join me in celebrating with joy the witness of the great Roman deacon as testimony to the vitality of the church of the popes. (May the good God bring us to better understanding and even unity.) But I trust we might now agree to ponder together that the sufferings of Christ must in some sense be repeated in all of the redeemed and adopted children of God. May those of us who are never called to suffer the temptations of Laurence, Tiburtius, or Susannah, understand and lovingly accept the purpose for every suffering we should presently endure. God bless.

3DOP

Dearly beloved, think not strange the burning heat which is to try you, as if some new thing happened to you; But if you partake of the sufferings of Christ, rejoice that when his glory shall be revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy.

---I Peter 4:12 Edited August 11, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

And behold they brought to him one sick of the palsy lying in a bed. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the man sick of the palsy: Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee.

---Mt. 9:2

In concluding our discussion of infant baptism, and moving on to other evidence alleged to be symptomatic of apostasy in the early church, I would point to the importance of the "communion of saints". It as an article of faith that ranks so high among Catholics as to be included with creeds that proclaim the virgin birth, the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, and His second coming to judge the living and the dead.

"...We believe in the Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting..."

---The Apostles Creed

What is the communion of saints? According to Catholic teaching it is God's will that our redemption is won through Jesus Christ and his immediate passion and death on our behalf. But we also teach that it is evident that our redemption is not with effect apart from the proximate participation of godly members of Christ's Mystical Body who act according to the instructions of Jesus our Head.

We see a vivid example of this principle where a man who is unable to walk, and perhaps even to speak is brought to Christ by four friends who had faith in the poor man's critical need to see and hear Jesus. For their faith, the palsied man's sins are forgiven! No one, not the palsied man, nor a baptized baby will enjoy God's tabernacles eternally if they eventually resist the grace of God, as we are all capable of doing. Jesus is not violating the palsied man's freedom of will. But He is showing that in the formative times of faith, even though we are ultimately "drawn by the Father", it is through the instrument of other believers that we first gain faith.

Preeminent among those who "give the gift of faith" are parents unto their children. For those who may not be aware, the Catholic Church does not baptize adults who lack the signs of faith, nor babies whose parents lack the faith. The Church knows that such baptisms, unless in case of emergency are occasions of sacrilege. Only if the child is reared in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; only if the adult convert shows the desire to grow and progress in the faith of Jesus is holy baptism appropriate.

In another post, I used the expression "Hyper-Individualism". I suggest that it is an overly individualistic Christianity which takes a position that fails to recognize the principle whereby one man can be forgiven because of the faith of someone else. This story of the palsied man is not a unique instance never to be repeated, but a life-giving and instructive event repeated by Matthew, Mark, and Luke to remind us that it is ordinarily through a community of saints that we may receive eternal life. I have only received my faith through the faithfulness of others. To Christ is their debt and mine, but all of our faith victories intermingle and overflow each other. It is certainly impossible to calculate on this side of heaven, the good souls whose smallest acts of charity are the cumulative reasons for a soul's salvation.

I have said I was once a Baptist. Everybody needs to make their own decision for God if they can be forgiven of sins! Very individualistic. Very American. Very true to a point. At the point where it cannot be reconciled with the record of Holy Scripture, is where such individualism is no longer persuasive for me. St. Paul speaks in clear terms how those with faith, especially members of the same family, sanctify our spouses or children. Here St. Paul is reasoning about why the lack of faith by one spouse is an abominable reason for the faithful spouse to abandon their wife or husband:

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband: otherwise your children should be unclean; but now they are holy.

---I Cor. 7:14

I remember mocking the "baby sprinklers". To those who think only in individualistic ways, the baptism of an infant is bizarre, even perhaps absurd. To those who view the action according to the light of the meaning of Catholic belief in the communion of the saints, it becomes more than reasonable. It is a beautiful ceremony whereby the future freedom of the child is in no wise violated and where because of at least one faithful parent, rather than a child being "unclean", "they are holy."

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

It is a bit of a relief to have finally taken a few moments to put those thoughts into the thread. I have been thinking about it for days. Yep seems to have for the moment left us, though I doubt not in his interest and eventual return. In the meantime, I anticipate reviewing his evidences in favor of an apostasy in the early church and I think will be discussing his objections to the form of government which characterized the early centuries. At some point, I hope also to discuss the misgivings raised by Alan and others that are of a slightly different turn. All of this so far is with a view to explaining why, even if I had a testimony of the Book of Mormon, I could not place the apostasy in the first three centuries. I am not for now arguing that there was never an apostasy. I am arguing that if there was one, it was later than is convenient for what appears to me to be a superficial and overly simplistic dismissal of counter-evidence that can be brought forward by Roman Catholics as well as Eastern Orthodox.

God Bless,

3DOP

Edited August 11, 2012 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

---Mt. 9:2

In concluding our discussion of infant baptism, and moving on to other evidence alleged to be symptomatic of apostasy in the early church, I would point to the importance of the "communion of saints". It as an article of faith that ranks so high among Catholics as to be included with creeds that proclaim the virgin birth, the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, and His second coming to judge the living and the dead.

---The Apostles Creed

What is the communion of saints? According to Catholic teaching it is God's will that our redemption is won through Jesus Christ and his immediate passion and death on our behalf. But we also teach that it is evident that our redemption is not with effect apart from the proximate participation of godly members of Christ's Mystical Body who act according to the instructions of Jesus our Head.

We see a vivid example of this principle where a man who is unable to walk, and perhaps even to speak is brought to Christ by four friends who had faith in the poor man's critical need to see and hear Jesus. For their faith, the palsied man's sins are forgiven! No one, not the palsied man, nor a baptized baby will enjoy God's tabernacles eternally if they eventually resist the grace of God, as we are all capable of doing. Jesus is not violating the palsied man's freedom of will. But He is showing that in the formative times of faith, even though we are ultimately "drawn by the Father", it is through the instrument of other believers that we first gain faith.

Preeminent among those who "give the gift of faith" are parents unto their children. For those who may not be aware, the Catholic Church does not baptize adults who lack the signs of faith, nor babies whose parents lack the faith. The Church knows that such baptisms, unless in case of emergency are occasions of sacrilege. Only if the child is reared in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; only if the adult convert shows the desire to grow and progress in the faith of Jesus is holy baptism appropriate.

In another post, I used the expression "Hyper-Individualism". I suggest that it is an overly individualistic Christianity which takes a position that fails to recognize the principle whereby one man can be forgiven because of the faith of someone else. This story of the palsied man is not a unique instance never to be repeated, but a life-giving and instructive event repeated by Matthew, Mark, and Luke to remind us that it is ordinarily through a community of saints that we may receive eternal life. I have only received my faith through the faithfulness of others. To Christ is their debt and mine, but all of our faith victories intermingle and overflow each other. It is certainly impossible to calculate on this side of heaven, the good souls whose smallest acts of charity are the cumulative reasons for a soul's salvation.

I have said I was once a Baptist. Everybody needs to make their own decision for God if they can be forgiven of sins! Very individualistic. Very American. Very true to a point. At the point where it cannot be reconciled with the record of Holy Scripture, is where such individualism is no longer persuasive for me. St. Paul speaks in clear terms how those with faith, especially members of the same family, sanctify our spouses or children. Here St. Paul is reasoning about why the lack of faith by one spouse is an abominable reason for the faithful spouse to abandon their wife or husband:

---I Cor. 7:14

I remember mocking the "baby sprinklers". To those who think only in individualistic ways, the baptism of an infant is bizarre, even perhaps absurd. To those who view the action according to the light of the meaning of Catholic belief in the communion of the saints, it becomes more than reasonable. It is a beautiful ceremony whereby the future freedom of the child is in no wise violated and where because of at least one faithful parent, rather than a child being "unclean", "they are holy."

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

It is a bit of a relief to have finally taken a few moments to put those thoughts into the thread. I have been thinking about it for days. Yep seems to have for the moment left us, though I doubt not in his interest and eventual return. In the meantime, I anticipate reviewing his evidences in favor of an apostasy in the early church and I think will be discussing his objections to the form of government which characterized the early centuries. At some point, I hope also to discuss the misgivings raised by Alan and others that are of a slightly different turn. All of this so far is with a view to explaining why, even if I had a testimony of the Book of Mormon, I could not place the apostasy in the first three centuries. I am not for now arguing that there was never an apostasy. I am arguing that if there was one, it was later than is convenient for what appears to me to be a superficial and overly simplistic dismissal of counter-evidence that can be brought forward by Roman Catholics as well as Eastern Orthodox.

God Bless,

3DOP

Howdy

I am not sure what you are saying here about the communion of saints, but I think what you are saying if you were to say it directly, is that Mormons do not believe in the communion of Saints. Is that what you are saying, putting it simply for my little brain?

Indeed of course one of our major concerns is doing work for the dead and we clearly feel solidarity with all those on both sides of the veil.

When I read the Apostle's Creed, with which I agree, that is the way I interpret it.

[Alan]

3DOP,

I'm sorry, I have no idea what "London Broil" is. Hope you enjoyed it though.

Hope you were not offended by my description of the catholic church's activities at various times in history; I was just trying to give some background to my question. Your comparison of the maturity of the modern church (peodophile priests and cover-ups apart) with it's infant past and your own growth from infancy is ok on the surface, but doesn't really stand up to scutiny. If lethal blows or abuse had been applied to that baby, you would not have survived, or if you had, not very well.

One of the easiest things to do from the available historical records, is to illustrate beyond doubt the depravity of the catholic priesthood at various times in history, especially at it's highest levels. In fact, we would, I believe, be hard pressed to find an historian, sympathetic to the catholic cause, who would argue with that. To suggest it was all down to immaturity and growing pains does those martyrs who suffered at the hands of the catholic church a great disservice.

So I wonder whether you have had a chance to consider my question a little more deeply?