Was the Ante-Nicene Church "Orthodox?"

[Spammer]

48 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

the point of this thread is that the ideas which form the doctrines of the trinity also developed and evolved over time, and are not found in the ante-Nicene Church for the most part. They seemed to start with Athanasius. 

In case you're not aware, Athanasius' classic treatise 'On the Incarnation', which is entirely Nicene Orthodox, was written about seven years prior to the Council of Nicea, when Athanasius was a deacon in Alexandria. Nothing Athanasius wrote contradicts what Irenaeus wrote more than a century earlier, and Irenaeus received his theology from his teacher, Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John.  What Athanasius believed is older than Athanasius.

[RevTestament]

28 minutes ago, saemo said:

Well I think you demonstrate with this thread that Mormon anti-Catholicism is alive and well.  I'll leave you to it. 

The point of my thread is not to spout off a bunch of anti-Catholic rhetoric. It is to point out that I believe the evidence shows that the doctrines of the trinity and other ideas associated with "orthodoxy" are not required to be considered Christian or to be saved despite the exclusionary nature of the early creeds. There was nothing like these creeds before Nicea and Christians were not required to profess certain beliefs about the Godhead or the begotten nature of Christ or to be excommunicated. 

However, I do note that bishop Paul was excommunicated for insisting on using "homoousious" since at the time that was considered gnostic ideology, while later that very term got adopted at Nicea.

My intent is not to be offensive, although some may take it that way, but to provoke thought, and to show how LDS Christianity is not so different from early Christianity as is usually depicted by "orthodox" Christians. Thanks for weighing in.

[saemo]

39 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

The point of my thread is not to spout off a bunch of anti-Catholic rhetoric. It is to point out that I believe the evidence shows that the doctrines of the trinity and other ideas associated with "orthodoxy" are not required to be considered Christian or to be saved despite the exclusionary nature of the early creeds. There was nothing like these creeds before Nicea and Christians were not required to profess certain beliefs about the Godhead or the begotten nature of Christ or to be excommunicated. 

However, I do note that bishop Paul was excommunicated for insisting on using "homoousious" since at the time that was considered gnostic ideology, while later that very term got adopted at Nicea.

My intent is not to be offensive, although some may take it that way, but to provoke thought, and to show how LDS Christianity is not so different from early Christianity as is usually depicted by "orthodox" Christians. Thanks for weighing in.

Paul of Samosata taught monarchism, which had the heretical view of adoptionism. If he used the word homoousius, it was in that context.  He would have been teaching that Jesus became one in nature with God.  Incidentally, Oneness Pentecostals reflect this heresy today. 

Mormons always argue against Christ's Church. Your prerogative, of course, but there is always a slant towards looking for failure. Always. Mormons are unable to accept that Jesus gave to us an Advocate, to guide us to all truth.  So yeah, it is part of your nature, so to speak.  I don't find it offensive, I find it sad. 

Edited May 17, 2016 by saemo

[Anakin7]

    For what it is worth ... I have a # of friends who are Greek/Coptic Egyptian Orthodox clergy and lay members who know I am LDS and put me into the Christian Mansion in Heaven.   

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine 

Washing My Robes In The Blood Of The Lamb

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Anakin7]

From my LDS Sentinel Kryptonian Lights LDS are Ancient Monarch Eastern Economic Social Godheadians Trinitarians.  Note - my use of Monarch is not the same as Paul of Samosata but I use it a a Title of Authority.

 

Washing My Robes In The Blood Of The Lamb

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

[Anakin7]

Oh and I love going to the Orthodox Fall Festivals, Those people know how to party !.

Washing My Robes In The Blood Of The Lamb

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7  

   

[Spammer]

7 minutes ago, Anakin7 said:

    For what it is worth ... I have a # of friends who are Greek/Coptic Egyptian Orthodox clergy and lay members who know I am LDS and put me into the Christian Mansion in Heaven.   

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine 

Washing My Robes In The Blood Of The Lamb

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

I'm not surprised. Near the end of every Divine Liturgy, before we dare to approach the chalice containing the Body and Blood of the Lamb, we pray the Lord's prayer and at the moment the cup is presented we say 'I believe O Lord and I confess, that thou are the Christ, the Son of the Living God, who camest into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first.'  Who is and is not saved is none of my business, but God's alone.  As the first of sinners, I am in no place to judge.  This is central to Orthodox spirituality and this disposition determines whether receiving the Eucharist will have the intended effect and activate the benefits of the atonement.  If I judge my brother or sister, Orthodox or not, that action cancels the effect.  An anonymous monk in the Russian tradition within our Church describes who exactly is a member of the Church: 'As the Blessed Augustine noted: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within". There may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone.  If anyone is saved, he must, in some sense, be a member of the Church, but in what sense, it is not always possible to say. The Spirit of God blows where it will, and, as St. Irenaeus points out, where the Spirit is there is the Church! In any case, the judgement is left to God.'

As well, since we Orthodox believe that God is everywhere present and fills all things, to say that there is a separate place where God is not is an impossibility.  Heaven and hell are not places, but conditions of the soul.  All will be brought into the presence of God to dwell in his Kingdom eternally and that experience will be heavenly or hellish, depending on the state of the soul. To say that those who enter God's presence and experience that presence as hell will do so eternally is to deny the mercy of God.  All who repent and turn to God, in this life or the next, can be saved.  There are debates about the finality of the hell state within Orthodoxy, but I'm one of the many who believe that only the most reprobate will choose to refuse to repent and be saved, even when brought to stand before the throne of God. 

So, yes, we believe all people of good will be placed into the Christian Mansion in Heaven.  It will only depend on whether 'you have done it unto the least of these, my brethren.' 

 

[Jim Stiles]

19 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Jim, I am glad that you believe in baptism as a sign of our covenant with Christ. That is actually refreshing in this day and age of Christian error, and I actually agree with most of what this fellow has to say. To save the viewer time, tho I will summarize that he is basically arguing that infant baptism was an extension of infant circumcision except in another covenant. LDS actually believe a form of this in that if a baby is born to parents in the covenant, then they are automatically sealed to their parents. 

I am not going to argue that none of the early Christians baptized their infants, what I am saying is there was no commandment or church directive to perform infant baptism. Clearly tho, not everything the early Christians did was correct, as attested to by the epistles written by the apostles in order to correct and provide guidance. However, I hope the reader will consider the weight of Jesus' words about the importance of being reborn in His word - that His followers must be born again of water and the spirit. This strongly implies a knowledgeable or consensual exercise of free agency to choose baptism or to follow Christ. I cannot buy the excuse that gnosticism caused the practice of infant baptism to cease until it was restored by the Catholic church so many years later. Of course I also accept additional scripture on this subject in the Book of Mormon. It seems the sign of circumcision practiced at 8 days, became 8 years of wait time for the sign of baptism when children become responsible for their actions. Further, circumcision was not practiced on females, so to precisely correlate the two signs doesn't fly. 

There is no express mention of infant baptism in the scriptures, and yet you maintain it is correct. There is express mention, however, of baptism for the dead, and early patristic evidence it was performed, and yet, my guess is you will not accept it...am I right?

CFR.  I am not being mean; I just really want to see the patristic evidence for baptism for the dead.

[saemo]

9 minutes ago, Spammer said:

 

So, yes, we believe all people of good will be placed into the Christian Mansion in Heaven.  It will only depend on whether 'you have done it unto the least of these, my brethren.' 

 

Ditto. 

[Anakin7]

Thank you.

Washing My Robes In The Blood Of The Lamb

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

[Anakin7]

 What is the Orthodox Church position on the Protestant Reformer Martin Luther and Lutheranism ?.thank you.

Washing My Robes In the Blood Of The lamb

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

Edited May 17, 2016 by Anakin7

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, saemo said:

Well I think you demonstrate with this thread that Mormon anti-Catholicism is alive and well.  I'll leave you to it. 

It demonstrates that there is one anti-Catholic Mormon here. His position is almost dead among thoughtful LDS. It seems noteworthy that fellow Mormons are neither commenting positively nor giving any reputation points. If we bothered to point it out to the moderators, especially with that "copyrighted" junk it would probably get shut down. Thankfully, most Mormons today pay more attention to their own prophets when it comes to Catholicism than 19th Century Protestant screwballs who went to "churches" that don't even exist anymore. A case in point would be Smac's recent observation about the visit in Salt Lake of a representative from the Bishops Conference.

[Spammer]

1 hour ago, Anakin7 said:

 What is the Orthodox Church position on the Protestant Reformer Martin Luther and Lutheranism ?.thank you.

Washing My Robes In the Blood Of The lamb

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

Hmm..I think it's best to begin by saying we Eastern Orthodox consider Luther and Lutherans as our separated brothers and sisters in Christ. We view Rome, Protestants, and the other Orthodox churches with whom we aren't in communion the same way. More narrowly, we view Rome as having separated from us 1000 years ago and Luther/Lutherans separated from Rome 500 years later. One way to look at it is that Lutherans are thus doubly separated from us, an offshoot of an offshoot. Even so, we don't see much of a distinction between Rome and Lutheranism. We see Lutherans (and Anglicans) as basically Roman Catholics without the Pope. To us, it's all Western Christianity, an innovation and divergence that came into existence once the popes began to assert universal supremacy. Rome, of course, has a different narrative about itself, us and the Protestants. 

The 16th Century saw some dialogue with Lutherans that didn't really go anywhere. The 20th Century saw a lot more dialogue between Lutherans and Orthodox, and between Anglicans and Orthodox. There was a lot of progress toward union, but this has all been derailed since Lutheran and Anglican churches began ordaining women and allowing same-sex marriage. Sadly, I'd say we're farther apart than we've ever been.

Of course, the foregoing should all be understood within the context I provided earlier regarding what we believe about who is saved.

 

Edited May 17, 2016 by Spammer

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said:

CFR.  I am not being mean; I just really want to see the patristic evidence for baptism for the dead.

fair enough, although my complete research is on another computer which is down right now.

While more than patristic, the first is Paul in Corinthians:

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Orthodox always try to say Paul was referring to pagans who baptized their dead or some unidentified errant but well-meaning group of Christians.

However, there is considerable evidence that baptism for the dead was practiced for a long time in the early church. In the fourth century Epiphanius wrote of the Cerinthians:

“In this country—I mean Asia—and even in Galatia, their school flourished eminently and a traditional fact concerning them has reached us, that when any of them had died without baptism, they used to baptize others in their name, lest in the resurrection they should suffer punishment as unbaptized.” (Heresies, 8:7.)

 

At the beginning of the fifth century Epiphanius reports: 

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

St. Ambrose recalled, but did not approve, the practice:   

Fearing that a dead person who had never been baptized would be resurrected badly [male] or not at all, a living person would be baptized in the name of the dead one. Hence he [Paul] adds: "Else why are they baptized for them?" According to this he does not approve of what is done but shows the firm faith in the resurrection [that it implies].

Similarly Tertullian mentions the practice among the Marcionites but does not approve of it saying baptism is for the body. But Tertullian does not fully understand baptism. It is also a sign of the resurrection of our bodies out of the sea of the world or through the living water of Christ. 

So although most of the scholars who report the practice do not approve of it, they do acknowledge the practice occurred from the earliest times. The exception is the practice of proxy baptism in the Coptic church.

The very fact that the practice of baptizing dead bodies was ruled heretical in 393 shows the practice continued. The fourth canon of the Synod of Hippo declares “The Eucharist shall not be given to dead bodies, nor baptism conferred upon them.” The ruling was confirmed four years later in the sixth canon of the Third Council of Carthage.  The monophysitic church of Egypt, however, essentially ignored these councils.

However, this is not really proxy baptism for the dead. In proxy baptism the dead body is not present, but another is baptized in their stead. In this way those who never heard the gospel of Christ can accept it if they wish. These would be the same spirits Peter says Christ visited in spirit after He was killed. See  1 Peter 4:6, 5. Why would Jesus go visit the spirits in Spirit Prison if they cannot be saved? In fact we find in John Jesus saying He is going to visit them so that those who lived before could be resurrected with Him if they accepted His word:

John 5:25  Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Now they were under the old covenant so they didn't need baptism. In the new covenant Christ Himself indicates we need baptism which is the very reason you believe babies need baptism.

Edited May 17, 2016 by RevTestament

[Jim Stiles]

37 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

...

Now they were under the old covenant so they didn't need baptism. In the new covenant Christ Himself indicates we need baptism which is the very reason you believe babies need baptism.

A clarification on my personal view of baptism is in order.

Quote

WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH
CHAPTER 28
Of Baptism

1. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.

2. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.

3. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.

4. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.

5. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

6. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.

7. The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.

Scriptural proof-texts are available upon request.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, saemo said:

Paul of Samosata taught monarchism, which had the heretical view of adoptionism. If he used the word homoousius, it was in that context.  He would have been teaching that Jesus became one in nature with God.  Incidentally, Oneness Pentecostals reflect this heresy today. 

Mormons always argue against Christ's Church. Your prerogative, of course, but there is always a slant towards looking for failure. Always. Mormons are unable to accept that Jesus gave to us an Advocate, to guide us to all truth.  So yeah, it is part of your nature, so to speak.  I don't find it offensive, I find it sad. 

And Catholics always argue against Christ's restored Church. I don't usually find it offensive, but it is sad that they are blinded by the teachings of men.

The Holy Spirit is not an advocate. That is Christ's role. He is our advocate with the Father. The Holy Spirit is His witness, and confirms the truth of His word, and any new revelations.

1 John 2:1

1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

BTW I am not arguing against "Christ's Church." I don't feel Tertullian represents Christ's Church. I believe he was a scholar - one of good number. I believe those Christians in the early Church are quite a bit safer than those caught in the throes of the Medieval Church....

Catholics do not believe the Church was prophesied to go apostate.

Acts 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

What do you believe this restitution of all things is? Christ will not return until there is a restoration of all things. Now there cannot be a restoration if there was not an apostasy.

 

1 Timothy 4:1: Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed toseducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Is it the latter times? Who forbids their members to marry?

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

It demonstrates that there is one anti-Catholic Mormon here. His position is almost dead among thoughtful LDS. It seems noteworthy that fellow Mormons are neither commenting positively nor giving any reputation points. If we bothered to point it out to the moderators, especially with that "copyrighted" junk it would probably get shut down. Thankfully, most Mormons today pay more attention to their own prophets when it comes to Catholicism...

Yeah, a nice degree of PC exists today... Everyone gives a part of God's light including Mohammed.

Me...I'm sure I'll get thrown under the bus.

Now you characterize me as anti-Catholic. I am pro-truth, and anti-man-made falsehoods. I actually like a lot of Catholics including yourself...at least I did. I have had Catholic friends and Protestant friends, and even a Buddhist friend. But to the extent I feel the Catholic Church has gone astray, I will attempt to reveal it. I see that bothers you: "especially with that "copyrighted" junk it would probably get shut down." LOL go ahead bro. That copyrighted stuff is mine...

The Catholics do the same thing with LDS: "Mormons always argue against Christ's Church. "

I hoped to have an open discussion about the early church without hard feelings or accusations. When that comes to religion tho, lots of times people can't take the heat. I have not accused Catholics of being bad people, or evil, or the like. I do not adopt the position of early Protestants that the Bishop of Rome is the antichrist. I have not been nasty to anyone on this thread. All I have done is talk about creeds and how several  things presented in them don't appear in the Bible or even in the early literature of the Church. No one has even tried to present any evidence that I am wrong, but now I am feeling a little ad hominem mud getting slung. What I have to say is show where I am wrong, and I will change it.

Edited May 18, 2016 by RevTestament

[3DOP]

Rev,

You have let a little sarcasm escape. But that is because you are so sure of yourself. It's okay. I retract that you are anti Catholic, and if time permits, I would like to more respectfully examine your material.

Regards,

3DOP

 

Edited May 18, 2016 by 3DOP

[RevTestament]

40 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Rev,You have let a little sarcasm escape.

 

yes, but it is not really in regards to you.

Quote

But that is because you are so sure of yourself. It's okay. I retract that you are anti Catholic, and if time permits, I would like to more respectfully examine your material.

I suppose I am sure of myself, and I have to be careful that I do not come across as arrogant - sometimes I get tired of repeating the same points. I am certainly guilty of error and sin in my life. I feel I walk a fine line because I want to help those searching for truth, but to do that I feel I have to point out where I see falsehood. Sometimes that makes people upset. But you are showing why I like you  3DOP. Indeed I am the first to admit that on other boards most Catholics I run across are friendly, open, and Christ-like, whereas I have encountered certain members of other sects I felt were very harsh and unfair. But in certain instances some became a friend once they got to know me. I can come across a bit strong at first it seems. I have no personal animosity towards Catholics, and I hope despite our differences we can have a beneficial dialogue. I will try to refrain from the sarcasm...as I have been guilty of some of that on the thread, and I am sure it annoys those of an "orthodox" bent.

[Anakin7]

    It is undeniable fact that  Water Baptism was necessary for Salvation in the N.T and in the True Teachings of post N.T Church authorities.

Washing My Robes In The Blood Of The Lamb

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine 

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

[ChristKnight]

10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Yes. There are multiple quorums of seventies. 

Luke 10:1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

So...there are multiple quorums of seventies, but are there seventy Seventies?  You said, in relation to Catholic cardinals, "except there aren't seventy of them".  So, I'm wondering if the LDS church has seventy seventies.  From what I understand, it does not, but I am open to being corrected.  

[saemo]

12 hours ago, RevTestament said:

And Catholics always argue against Christ's restored Church. I don't usually find it offensive, but it is sad that they are blinded by the teachings of men.

The Holy Spirit is not an advocate. That is Christ's role. He is our advocate with the Father. The Holy Spirit is His witness, and confirms the truth of His word, and any new revelations.

1 John 2:1

1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

BTW I am not arguing against "Christ's Church." I don't feel Tertullian represents Christ's Church. I believe he was a scholar - one of good number. I believe those Christians in the early Church are quite a bit safer than those caught in the throes of the Medieval Church....

Catholics do not believe the Church was prophesied to go apostate.

Acts 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

What do you believe this restitution of all things is? Christ will not return until there is a restoration of all things. Now there cannot be a restoration if there was not an apostasy.

 

1 Timothy 4:1: Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed toseducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Is it the latter times? Who forbids their members to marry?

That you use lists and arguments that are hundreds of years old and have been refuted thousands of times. It's about the same as a non Mormon coming here with the list of anti Mormon stuff that you've seen a hundred times. You know what it is because it is what it is. 

I know more than a few Catholics who view the prophesied apostasy as occurring now. Today. Even then the prophesy is not of failure of Christ's  Church. It is of people leaving it.

No one is forbidden to marry. Individuals make a choice to serve God, exclusively. That choice is made in prayer and discernment  Marriage is a religious vocation for us  People have other religious vocations from which to discern where God calls them. Paul also recommended that a man not marry, in order to serve God. Do you think Paul was forbidding marriage, or perhaps pointing out there are other ways to serve God?

Edited May 18, 2016 by saemo

[RevTestament]

10 hours ago, ChristKnight said:

So...there are multiple quorums of seventies, but are there seventy Seventies?  You said, in relation to Catholic cardinals, "except there aren't seventy of them".  So, I'm wondering if the LDS church has seventy seventies.  From what I understand, it does not, but I am open to being corrected.  

When the church was first restored there was one quorum of seventies  of seventy which were to assist the apostles. They had their own presidency of three. Since that time there have been various other quorums - there was a quorum of local seventies which lived around the world in various places, and assisted stakes, wards and branches - gave talks, etc. There were 70 members of that quorum as well. I believe now there are eight quorums of seventies. https://www.lds.org/church/leaders/quorums-of-the-seventy?lang=eng

Edited May 18, 2016 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, saemo said:

That you use lists and arguments that are hundreds of years old and have been refuted thousands of times. It's about the same as a non Mormon coming here with the list of anti Mormon stuff that you've seen a hundred times. You know what it is because it is what it is. 

Some non-LDS who come here have valid questions about scriptures and so forth - Steve Noel was a recent one. Others come with their lists from anti-sites, and usually I try to talk with them too, but I do get tired of the same old arguments sometimes, yes, and said so a few posts ago. However, again the point of this thread is not for me to throw out a bunch of anti-Catholic rhetoric, and I don't believe I have done so. My points have been directed at the apparent fact that the ante-Nicene Church doesn't seem to have the "Catholic" characteristics. Personally, I haven't seen most of my arguments about the creeds elsewhere. I made that list myself when trying to relate my understanding of the Godhead to a non-Catholic actually. As I began the list I felt the spirit get stronger and stronger. Anyway, there are only so many scriptures which describe the apostasy, so I am sure you have seen them before.

Quote

I know more than a few Catholics who view the prophesied apostasy as occurring now. Today. Even then the prophesy is not of failure of Christ's  Church. It is of people leaving it.

I just wanted your take on that particular one from Acts because I believe it is one of the clearest. So from your response I take it you view that particular restoration as a restoration of the number of people before the Savior returns? or does a "restoration of all things" talk about a restoration of gospel principles as "things" - priesthood, etc?

Quote

No one is forbidden to marry. Individuals make a choice to serve God, exclusively. That choice is made in prayer and discernment  Marriage is a religious vocation for us  People have other religious vocations from which to discern where God calls them. Paul also recommended that a man not marry, in order to serve God. Do you think Paul was forbidding marriage, or perhaps pointing out there are other ways to serve God?

Well, the only other group I know of with any prohibition on marriage who could be described as departing from the faith were the Shakers - which appear to have lasted not very long...

I wonder how you personally reconcile the verses of 1 Timothy 3 which says a bishop should have a wife. Do you feel that has anything to do with being able to judge how he oversees his family?  "4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;" In other words a man who is not a good family man should not be called as a bishop... it seems to be saying. Just wondered your thoughts on that.

[Spammer]

50 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

My points have been directed at the apparent fact that the ante-Nicene Church doesn't seem to have the "Catholic" characteristics. 

How about these ante-Nicene Church characteristics?

God is most definitely not an embodied human male.  He is uncreated and a spirit.

God, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one substance and three persons.

Ex nihilo creation.

Liturgical, 'mass-like' worship with altars, vestments, incense, set prayers and the Eucharist.

Sounds Catholic to me. Yes, there was disagreement over whether 'there was a a time when the Son was not', but those who said they believed that (Tertullian and Arius) shared the above characteristics with those who did not.  The claim that the ante-Nicene Church doesn't seem to have the "Catholic" characteristics is baseless.  

Edited May 18, 2016 by Spammer