Maynard

I really wish that we were sitting with you when discussing this topic. It is difficult sometimes to reply quickly and with words accurately enough to be explained without misunderstanding. The term debate is used in many accurate histories of the council of Nicea. The bishops did debate. They were unified in the truth of the apostolic teaching on the nature of God. However, because one can say things that sound heretical, there must be a thorough understanding of what is meant. A great example of this is Romans 3:28, Paul can say that justification comes by faith apart from works, however this has to be seen in light of what James writes inside James chapter 2 and following and vice versa. In other words what Arius said and wrote could sound heretical but with further explanation fall under the umbrella of what is true and orthodox. Arius, for his part was resigned to defend his position. The council of Bishops, before excommunicating Arius gave him an opportunity to recant his heretical beliefs. The council then took to the discussion about what words could be used to clearly elucidate the apostolic teachings on the nature of God. When describing what is true a group can still "debate" what words state that truth most effectively without the possibility of being misunderstood. The fact of the matter is that the Bishops guided by the Holy Spirit did an effective job of making the creed's words difficult to twist. You make it seem as though the Bishops came into the council without an opinion of the nature of God and were swayed back and forth by arguments of Arianism and for the Trinity. I can provide several citations from those using primary sources to support this view of Nicea. Can you provide likewise for your position? I do have a further question. You make the claim several times that, "The Catholic Church is an expert on its own history." What do you man by this? What are the implications of this statement?

Anatess, I respectfully disagree with your sentiments about how the councils have functioned throughout history, and your impression of how the Catholic Church has viewed these councils. Often times, what we know to be true creates boundaries that other truths must fall between. For instance, we know that God is sovereign, and we know that man has free will. If we hold both of these things to be true, and we are interested in learning more about how God and man interact in the plan of salvation, we can only adopt principles that do not violate truths that have already been accepted. At Nicea, Arius was summoned several times, so that his formulation of God could be heard in his own voice. The bishops then discussed the ramifications of these writings in order to discern whether they violated the principles of the faith and distorted the teachings of the nature of God. When the formulation of the creed was first offered to the council 313 of the 318 bishops present assented to the creed convinced that it affirmed the teachings on the nature of God. Two others were uncomfortable with a couple of words used, and that others may easily twist them to a misunderstanding. I am short of time so I must end this comment, but the point is that there is an enormous difference between debating the truth of a doctrine and hammering out language that will put a finer point on the teachings that are being misunderstood in order to avoid future issues.

Your claim is that Judas was never a bishop because you completely separate the office of bishop and apostleship. However, your own scriptures regarding the replacement of Judas state "let another his bishoprick take." Reasonable parties would acknowledge two things. 1. A plain reading of scripture would indicate that the selection of an Apostle is being referred to as replacing and bishop/filling a bishoprick (take your pick of the two, they essentially mean the same thing). 2. The plain reading of scripture is not always the true meaning of that scripture. I contend that these facts place us in the following position. We must accept the plain meaning of scripture OR we must show through scripture addressing similar themes, that the plain text reading is not the correct one. I also detect was may be a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. The Apostolic Succession and the office of bishop is intimately united. Catholics believe that the Apostles were the bishops, that was the Apostolic office. Bishop was not a subset of apostle. To be an Apostle was to be a bishop. Those who hold the office of bishop today, hold the apostolic office. The bishops acting in concert can make pronouncements about doctrine guarded from error by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you were clear on this, but I wanted to make sure we were using like terms. I am very interested in your evidence that the use of the term bishoprick in reference to Matthias filling the office of Judas, is only about the responsibilities and not about the bishoprick being the office that an Apostle held. You asked "Where in Scripture do you see bishops being given an apostolic calling?" This assumes that the office of bishop and the apostolic office are separate. Catholic contend that they are not. In this passage of scripture the office of bishop is the office that Matthias takes when he ordained one of the 12.

I appreciate this new perspective Traveler. I will let it digest for a while.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/1?lang=eng Take a look at Acts 1:20 in the LDS New Testament. The clearest representation that we see an ordination to a Bishoprick in the act of replacing an Apostle, (along with this are several first century writings that equate the bishops with the Apostles, which of course the LDS church by necessity must consider apostate) Interesting that throughout history (again it must all be apostate history) the office of bishop has been referred to as an apostolic office. Where in history, before Joseph Smith is the 'office of apostle' considered apart from the office of bishop? As far as Paul goes, Stephen, clearly spoke of participation in the New Testament council which included the Apostles. It did not include Paul, he had not converted yet.

I am not sure how to quote a post I am not responding to. So I will simply bold the quotes from my previous post that Anatess encouraged me to look at from an LDS viewpoint. "Unfortunately, a caricature has been created out of the history surrounding the Church and its popes over the last two millennia. There are several contributing factors to this. One is a misunderstanding of the Papacy. The Pope is the visible head of the Church on earth. As the head of the church he is responsible for leading the church and its members into a closer union with Christ." The history surrounding the church has been accurately reported without exaggeration about the scope and effects of the evil perpetrated by the bad actors ascending to the office of the papacy. "However, as the visible head of the Bride of Christ he is not guaranteed to be impeccable, nor are his personal views protected from error. The popes can err as leaders and theologians, and can even be deeply sinful men without violating the authority given to the Church by Christ. The protection of the Holy Spirit over the Pope is only that he will not err when making official statements on faith and morals. As for the root of temporal abuses, sin is the root of any temporal abuse." The catholic church has taught this from the beginning, but because the church was in apostasy as early as 70AD this teaching is in error. Therefore both the teaching that the pope is only inerrant when officially speaking on faith and morals and the teaching that popes can be sinful men without entering the church into an apostasy is false. (Nowhere can one find support for this in history before the 1600's) "Peter was clearly the head of the early Church and he openly denied Christ during the Lord’s passion. Did this invalidate Peter as the leader of the Church? Was the Apostolic Church in apostasy because the leader of the Apostles rejected Christ?" Peter was not the Rock of the early Church, he was merely singled out by Christ because of his proclamation. The word Peter, Cephas in Aramaic, means Rock but that is a mere allusion to the fact that Peter would receive a revelation from the Father who actually is flesh and bone despite the accusation that, "for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven," made by Christ referring to Peter's prophecy. Peter's name was just listed first in all but one of the scriptural lists in Scripture because Peter was the one that made the pronouncement. Peter then was referred to by Christ as Satan (Matt 16:23). Satan (literally adversary) does not refer to the sinful pride of Peter in correcting Jesus. Arguing this from my LDS viewpoint, this neither is a sign that Peter is in personal apostasy nor that he has lost his worthiness to receive revelation merely because Christ called him a satan. Peter was just showing his personal weakness. Although Acts chapter 2 clearly refers to the Apostolic office as a bishopric, when Peter ordained Ignatius as bishop of Antioch and others as bishop he was not intending to pass on the authority of the apostles to these men. After all the apostles died out quickly before having a real opportunity to establish succession in the early church. "I am sure that you have heard this point before, but one ‘blessing’ of the bad popes is that they were so driven by selfish worldly desires that they did not spend their time writing or discussing the teachings of the Church. Because of this they couldn’t do damage to the teaching authority of the Church, or its doctrine. You claim that, "an LDS would shudder at the thought of a Church led in this manner." Many historians, including some LDS historians, have pointed out grievous acts committed by leaders in the LDS church." These never happened because the LDS church is the restored church and such things would only happen in the apostate church. Many people wrote terrible things about Joseph Smith/Brigham Young and accused him of unflattering actions because he was a prophet of god and they are always persecuted. "Thinking about the Filioque as an LDS… I would say that the Holy Spirit is a separate god from the heavenly father and Jesus, united only in will. I would deny the historical teachings of the early Christians in conjunction with the accounts of the Holy Spirit being breathed into Adam by the Father and breathed onto the Apostles by Jesus. Therefore eliminating the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and the Son)." "Regardless the filioque does point to another issue with classic GA apologetics, the thought that the effects of Greek Philosophy and paganism on early Christianity can be used as an illustration of the Apostasy. This is a classic attack against the early Christians. They adopted Greek thoughts (Neo-Platonism) and pagan religious practices (worshipping idols, holidays, etc), corrupting the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately the fact that early Christians, seeking to use the science of philosophy to explain Christian beliefs, adopted Greek terms and ways of speaking does not mean that the beliefs were changed. On the other hand, one can see many Greek and Pagan ideas flourishing in LDS theology. The concept of a heavenly goddess procreating with the god of heaven is clearly evident in many polytheistic pagan religions. The concept of the pre-existence of humans is woven through the works of several different pagan philosophers including Plato. The concept of eternal progression is also present in paganism. Interestingly enough, the early Christians rightly called these adoptions of Greek and Pagan thought heretical and defended the teachings of Christianity against them from the very beginning." The Greek thoughts and language existing in the Catholic Church are a sign of corruption and apostasy. Because the LDS church is the true church of god the Greek thoughts and language in its theology is true as revealed by the prophets. The problem with all of this, is the refusal of a very simple admittance. The HISTORICAL case for the Catholic Church and its doctrine is much stronger than the HISTORICAL case for the LDS church and its doctrine. NOTE: I am not making the claim that this automatically makes the teachings of the Catholic Church 100% true. I am not making the case that this means the Catholic Church is must be the true Church of Christ. I am not even making the claim that the Catholic Church did not somehow lose its way. I am making the argument that New Testament Christianity. The faith lived out by those in the generations of the Apostles and the 3 generations following them, looks much more like the faith of the Catholic Church than the LDS. To claim that the HISTORICAL arguments for each church are equal in vigor and it only depends which side you start from is simply untrue. In the historical light, to call Apostolic Succession arbitrary, and to then claim some evasive authority note clearly elucidated (outside of that succession) by New Testament Scriptures or other 1st and 2nd century writings is hypocritical. Again, if the Apostasy is an historical reality then it should have some historical weight behind it other than, you see that bad guy, clearly the church was in apostasy several centuries ago. Where are the discussions over the loss of authority? There are hundreds of documents by and refuting other issues (heresies from the Catholic perspective) why nothing addressing those who claim the authority of the Church had disappeared from the earth? Why is the best book on the apostasy, written by an LDS Geologist and not an historian? On a final note, you ask that I humble myself and do a lot of praying about what is true. I was once an avowed atheist. I had a heavenly experience (which is was absolutely necessary for my conversion) and was visited by an angel that revealed to me the truth of Christ and His One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church. This is only a personal revelation, however, God chose to humble me in my arrogance as an atheist. I have received personal revelation. Personal revelation however, is not a formula it is bound in a relationship between each person and the person of Christ. Personal revelation is not required for one to ascend to certain truths. I firmly believe that among those truths is the reasonableness (not the absolute certainity), but the reasonableness that the Catholic Church is the continuation of historic New Testament Christianity.

Anddenex, We can talk about the points that you brought up if you'd like, but they miss the point that I was attempting to make. You compare the less than 200 year history of the LDS to what happened 600+ years after the Catholic Church was established. You claimed that the LDS would not have had as many splinter groups if it acted as the Catholic Church in killing dissenters. Your argument implies that the Catholic Church employed such practices from its earliest inception. This purposely blurs the line between when the supposed apostasy took place and multiple centuries later. At issue is the question about splintering during respective eras of each church's history. In which case the question is legitimate. It may have a really great answer, but it is legitimate.

I have some questions that might help to clear the murky waters. First let me state the premise that m questions are based on so that you can disagree with them if you like. 1. Christ claimed that He would establish His church. 2. Christ indicated that this Church would be present on earth during the time of the Apostles. 3. There are only 2 plausible interpretations of Scripture where Christ's Church is concerned a) Christ established a Church with a visible form and an authority structure b) Christ established a Church of believers, the Church is invisible without an earthly head and all authority lies in the word of God rightly interpreted. Those premises being stated. It is my understanding that Catholics, LDS, and Greek Orthodox all subscribe to 3a. Of these three churches, the LDS church is the alone in believing that the authority of the Church was lost in an apostasy. The Orthodox would disagree that Peter rules over the other Apostles, but not that he is first in honor among the apostles. They would agree that the gates of hell did not prevail against the Church and Apostolic succession is the reason why. The Orthodox even believe that the Catholic Church has valid apostolic succession. All of that being said, the point made by Stephen seems to be a reasonable point of discussion amongst those who share the belief that Christ established a Church with a visible form and an earthly authority structure. The LDS church has a distinctly different understanding from the other churches that share 3a. If Christ's Church had as an essential element earthly authority how does the LDS belief live up to Christ's promises about the Church? If earthly authority is not essential what need is there for a restoration? On a side note am I hearing that the prophets get revelation because they are worthy spiritually? Hypothetically, if the LDS prophet were to commit a heinous crime or just be found to be a horribly sinful person in general would that mean that the LDS church was in apostasy? (I am not making accusations, I have never heard this before and am seeking clarity)

Anddenex, I couldn't let this one go. Could you cite any sources showing how the Catholic Church killed or burned anyone at the stake prior to the 5th century? I would argue you couldn't supply evidence of such before the 9th century, but regardless, the 5th century provides four hundred years of church history absent of the methods you claim were in use. Your claim is shameful. Origen, Tertullian, Augustine, and many others have writings from their non-Catholic periods that have been to some degree preserved to this day. Were any of these prominent men (only one of them died in line with Catholic teaching) killed by the hierarchy , burned at the stake? The Gnostics, Pelagians, Donatist, Arians, etc etc were all preaching against the Church and were not persecuted for it. As for the comment about scripture, I don't follow. Are you repeating the tired claim that in the pre-printing press era, where the manufacture of the Bibles cost the equivalent of $20,000 the church oppress the nearly 90% of the population that was illiterate by not handing out copies of the Bible for them to keep in their homes? Another blatant misunderstanding of history that any Non-LDS scholar (and many LDS scholars) would find utterly ridiculous. Forget that the Gospel was being preached openly in the streets by men who would eventually be murdered as a consquence. Forget that later in history cathedrals with picture gospels (sculptures, stained glass windows, paintings, mosaics, etc) were erected so that those who could not read could have a standing witness to the scriptural accounts. Otherwise you may have to admit that the Catholic Church wasn't some secretive organization unwilling to debate its ideas, or to share its teachings with nonmembers. Joseph Smith III left the LDS fold after the death of his father. Some of the witness of the BOM left the church before their deaths. Off shoots of Smith's religion were created and are still in existence. This is an issue that those proposing the GA have to deal with.

Unfortunately, a caricature has been created out of the history surrounding the Church and its popes over the last two millennia. There are several contributing factors to this. One is a misunderstanding of the Papacy. The Pope is the visible head of the Church on earth. As the head of the church he is responsible for leading the church and its members into a closer union with Christ. However, as the visible head of the Bride of Christ he is not guaranteed to be impeccable, nor are his personal views protected from error. The popes can err as leaders and theologians, and can even be deeply sinful men without violating the authority given to the Church by Christ. The protection of the Holy Spirit over the Pope is only that he will not err when making official statements on faith and morals. As for the root of temporal abuses, sin is the root of any temporal abuse. Peter was clearly the head of the early Church and he openly denied Christ during the Lord’s passion. Did this invalidate Peter as the leader of the Church? Was the Apostolic Church in apostasy because the leader of the Apostles rejected Christ? I am sure that you have heard this point before, but one ‘blessing’ of the bad popes is that they were so driven by selfish worldly desires that they did not spend their time writing or discussing the teachings of the Church. Because of this they couldn’t do damage to the teaching authority of the Church, or its doctrine. You claim that, "an LDS would shudder at the thought of a Church led in this manner." Many historians, including some LDS historians, have pointed out grievous acts committed by leaders in the LDS church. Many LDS deny that these acts ever took place, I have spoken to a few Temple Mormon's who are also historians who have admitted to me (in front of missionaries) that it would be very difficult, after analyzing all historical evidence, to deny that the atrocities took place and that LDS leaders were responsible for them. Most LDS do not shudder at these, they deny the accuracy of reports, create alternate scenarios, or lay the blame at the feet of someone other than their leaders. Thinking about the Filioque as an LDS… I would say that the Holy Spirit is a separate god from the heavenly father and Jesus, united only in will. I would deny the historical teachings of the early Christians in conjunction with the accounts of the Holy Spirit being breathed into Adam by the Father and breathed onto the Apostles by Jesus. Therefore eliminating the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and the Son). Regardless the filioque does point to another issue with classic GA apologetics, the thought that the effects of Greek Philosophy and paganism on early Christianity can be used as an illustration of the Apostasy. This is a classic attack against the early Christians. They adopted Greek thoughts (Neo-Platonism) and pagan religious practices (worshipping idols, holidays, etc), corrupting the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately the fact that early Christians, seeking to use the science of philosophy to explain Christian beliefs, adopted Greek terms and ways of speaking does not mean that the beliefs were changed. On the other hand, one can see many Greek and Pagan ideas flourishing in LDS theology. The concept of a heavenly goddess procreating with the god of heaven is clearly evident in many polytheistic pagan religions. The concept of the pre-existence of humans is woven through the works of several different pagan philosophers including Plato. The concept of eternal progression is also present in paganism. Interestingly enough, the early Christians rightly called these adoptions of Greek and Pagan thought heretical and defended the teachings of Christianity against them from the very beginning.

I think that a reading of some primary sources such as the Lorsch Annals, the Frankish Royal Annals, Liber Pontificalis, and Charles Einhard (close friend and biographer of Charlemagne) you might have a different view of the relationship between Charlemagne and Leo III. Even when I was no friend of the Catholic Church I never viewed the relationship of those two men as a struggle for power. Church state dynamics were something that continually must be sorted out. As for John XII, Pope Stephen VI and Formosus, and Alexander the VII whom you failed to mention, do you account for personal piety when considering authority? I am sure you know that Catholics have never believed that the truth of the faith relies on the personal piety of those administering it. While the faithful can be scandalized and continue to be scandalized by the immorality shown by former leaders of the Church, that immorality has no effect on the deposit of the faith, nor does it invalidate their authority. Look at the writings of Alexander VII instructing the members of the Church on faith and morals. I honestly have no clue what the LDS teach in regards to this. If the current Prophet of the Church were caught in an adulterous affair, or paying a hit man, or something similar, would he be removed from his position? Would it be a sign that the LDS had fallen into apostasy? Why do I have an issue with authority disappearing altogether. We all agree that the authority was there in the first place. There are clear indications in the New Testament of the idea of authority continuing in the church. If one church that makes up the whole of Christianity splits into two Churches over an issue they cannot resolve, and each church claims that it is THE Church that maintains that authority, why would one deduce that the authority had disappeared? I cannot think of a similar situation in which both players would lose their authority.

I see two ways to interpret the dispute over the filioque. 1. Pope Leo III denied the legitimacy of the filioque and thought that it was an erroneous doctrine. 2. Pope Leo III believed in theological implications of the filioque but wanting to preserve unity and knowing it wasn't necessary he decided to leave it out of the symbol. In light of the potential apostasy, I can see how one would assume that the Pope is illustrating a loss of authority/or a lack there of. If the authority was lost in early 800 during a high profile split between the East and West one is acting in authority and the other is stepping away from that authority. The authority disappearing all together, I don't understand.

Estradling, Let me first say that I am willing to acknowledge that God does not always guide history down what men would consider the most likely path. Also, I do not consider this an confession of any spiritual truths. I would like to ask you the following question. From a purely historical perspective, doesn't it make more sense that the coworkers and students of the Apostles, (Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, and others) would be preservers of the teachings of the Apostles rather than die for a teaching that they did not learn from the apostles? Put another way, would the logical place to look for the teachings of the Apostles be the writings of their students?

I would love to read a book by any non partisan historian on this. I have studied under great professors of history Jewish, agnostic, and atheist, who would vehemently disagree with these claims. There is no doubt that the gnostic texts were not preserved but the idea that there was nothing but dispute on these points is an exaggeration. At the height of the Arian Heresy 75% of the bishops held a heretical stance. The early Catholic Church was not heterodox.

I don't discredit the teachings of the heretical sects as evidence for the LDS cause. I actually see many similarities between the greek influenced beliefs of gnostics and what the LDS believe, specifically where the natures of gods and men are concerned. There is however, no clear development of these beliefs from the early church to the gnostic beliefs, or from the gnostic beliefs to the LDS doctrine peculiar to the restored church. Irenaeus writes clearly on these gnostic beliefs in his book "Against Heresies." Included in this is Irenaeus's discussion on how it can be difficult to determine who is correct because the gnostics use the scriptures (twisting them) to support their claims. Because both groups relied on the Scriptures as the authority for their case a higher authority must be appealed to. Irenaeus then traces the lineage of the Bishop of Rome from his day back to the Apostle Peter claiming that the bishops in this succession all shared the same Christian doctrine. If you are in line with the first and most glorious church, the church in Rome founded upon the greatest Apostles Peter and Paul then you are in line with the Truth. So said Irenaeus. Regardless I don't discount the heretical writings as evidence, and I would embrace the LDS making such a case publicly as a step forward in the legitimacy of their argumentation.