Christian view of eternal families


MrShorty
 Share

Recommended Posts

I wonder when paying the leaders for their work really started- or giving them a salary?

Also I find that the Bible supports that it is only not only "The LDS aversion" to paid ministry --

as if there weren't much in the bible about "hirelings as shepherds" etc and how Paul worked to NOT "be a burden on the members"?

and to me the bit about not preventing the animals that brought in the harvest to get a bite or two as they did the harvesting-- does not have to mean they were paid, but that they got to eat at church dinners too, not just only serving the widows etc?

--- It is true that I have less contact with ministers directly, but more with the official doctrinal stuff a church puts out or with members of other faiths.

I also do not have the references, for the things I remember reading.

I am up in the night- not being able to sleep. :(

I am glad to hear that there are pastors who support themselves as I had never heard of that. :)

I am thankful for any good works that any do. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My understanding of an eternal family,

is like on earth even, if there are family members that have "gone really astray"

THEY feel estranged, and uncomfortable and do not like to be around those still on the path.

---I have a nephew that with his wife is practically anti now- ((spreading anti literature and trying to pull other family members out of the church))

---plus a niece who- is breaking the word of wisdom, and got major tatooes, was living together outside of marriage (but they later did get married :) but she does not try to destroy the church.

---plus a brother who just has no testimony- does not attend, but actually lives the word of wisdom etc!

The nephew who is anti has now "defriended" most of the family from his facebook account.

I had to ask my niece to please only post modest pictures or I would need to block her :(

-- she did MUCH better then and we still connect and she likes family gatherings (we don't bug her)

The brother comes to everything (except church) family he can and is a great support to family members.

So, the way I see it, those couples not temple sealed, will not be living together

but I think they will still really care for each other, and may be waiting for their proxy work to be done.

I think just like some persons choices on earth make it so that they can not enter the temple

-- so in the higher degrees of glory-- some will not be able to come

because of THEIR choices. (they can still repent too I do believe- but it is harder there!)

I do love it that LDS have the knowledge to share :)

that it is not just heaven OR hell

but that there are degrees of glory-

like the sun (which also has degrees within that level)

the moon- kind of in the middle level

and lower down- the stars -- where there is little light

but then "outer darkness" with NO light at all--

but FEW will do so MUCH evil that they would merit that! (shudder).

Yes there are scripture references for this-- but I am no on my own computer to get them easily :(

Gramajane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder when paying the leaders for their work really started- or giving them a salary?

It started in the New Testament. In his letters, the Apostle Paul defends his choice not to take support from the church. He supported himself by making tents. Today, we have pastors and missionaries whom we refer to as "tentmakers," because they support themselves through secular employment.

Also I find that the Bible supports that it is only not only "The LDS aversion" to paid ministry --

as if there weren't much in the bible about "hirelings as shepherds" etc and how Paul worked to NOT "be a burden on the members"?

But again, Paul is defending his own decision not to be paid. Scripture also says that the laborer is worth his pay. Thus, even in New Testament times, the Overseers, or pastors/bishops/ministers were supported by the church. The tradition goes back to the Old Testament as well. The Levites and priests were supported by the offerings. The teachers of the law worked in the synagogues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder when paying the leaders for their work really started- or giving them a salary?...

The D&C seems to have allowed for leaders to be supported by the members:

And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned;

Or they are to receive a just remuneration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop.

And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church. (D&C 42:71-73)

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is Gramajane again,

I don't have much time and this is just off the top of my head--

but I seem to remember that in the O.T. that the priests took turns, serving in the temple?

Though if I remember the High Priest ? (the one who took care of Samuel as a boy) was a more permanent post, and his sons were doing wrong by taking of the food (meat and bread?) BEFORE it was offered to the Lord? -- I remember that the tribe of Levi was not given land of their own, as they were to dwell among the other tribes to serve them- but I do not remember that they were paid money?

-- I understand that like with the law of consecration, that things were shared, meals and such, but I don't remember anywhere where they were paid a salary?

-- I understand that even now, when a Primary teacher spends money for her class supplies, that she is to turn in the receipt for a "remuneration" and that Seminary teachers (not the full time ones) get a "stipend" to cover expenses made in DOING the work, (it is VERY small)

--- but the FULL time seminary teachers- who teach some classes that count for High School credit and so must have a degree etc- do get paid more in line with the non religious teachers, but this is not like any minister- whose congregation gets a plate passed to them to donate into?

--- that the apostles have their MUCH travel expenses paid IF they ask for it (I don't know how many donate that as an offering to God?)

--- So when I read that from the Doc & Cov, so I don't know if that means that they got some food (tithing in the early days of the church was often in kind, eggs, or flour, or potatoes or firewood etc)

as also in those days in the US even, it took a LOT longer to just get to the members houses,

but that if the bishops etc family wasn't in NEED, that they didn't just get paid?

Anyway- this is my understanding. I think it is an interesting topic that I would like to do an in depth study on some time.

I like it that in the restored church, nobody pays the officiator at a wedding, funeral, baptism etc-- it is free, and nobody pays the nursery leader, or even the organist etc.

I do understand though that in other churches the pastor is EXPECTED to go personally visit each member of his congregation, and do most ALL the work himself, so I can sure see that if that was the way it worked, then he wouldn't have any time to earn a living for himself or family.

In the restored church the MEMBERS are to visit, as home teachers, (to families) and visiting teachers to (women 18 and over) and we do not expect the Bishop to give a sermon (or two?) each Sunday and lead the prayers and prepare and serve the sacrament, do all the baptisms, etc etc.

Again it is the members who give the talks, and so the Bishop has time to earn his living and be with his family.

I also thought about it and I should have said not "many" but "SOME" preachers... preach TO their congregations and seem more interested in their personal "get" than the members spiritual gain. :(.

My favorite author was a preacher in the 1800 in Scotland, George MacDonald. At that time, from his writing MANY of the preachers were more like "fleecers". :( (MacDonald is whom C.S. Lewis says converted him to Christianity as C.S. had been an agnostic!)

I wish I personally knew more preachers. :) I totally doubt I have a good study group! Gramajane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This morning on "Running to Win," during the "question and answer" section of his broadcast, Dr. Lutzer suggested that he believes that our family members who have passed on remember who we are and continue to love and care about us.

It seems there is a range of beliefs on this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hi! :-)

Honestly when it comes to the belief of eternal families, it doesn't seem to go along with what Jesus states in Matthew (22:23-33), Mark and Luke.

"In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven." Mark 12:23-25

"Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection Luke 20:33-36

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi! :-)

Honestly when it comes to the belief of eternal families, it doesn't seem to go along with what Jesus states in Matthew (22:23-33), Mark and Luke.

"In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven." Mark 12:23-25

"Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection Luke 20:33-36

From the Church of Jesus Christ's perspective, we would give those passages a grade of "Incomplete." Yes they are true, but no they don't tell the whole story.

Consider that the revelation that introduced Eternal Marriage to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Doctrine and Covenants section 132. This revelation contains almost exactly the same wording as the New Testament passages you cited (bolded below). The difference is that it offers what we believe is the full picture instead of just a small part of it. (Tried to shorten it a bit so I'm not assaulting you with a giant wall of text. Feel free to read the whole thing here.)

7. And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power ... are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

13. And everything that is in the world, whether it be ordained of men, by thrones, or principalities, or powers, or things of name, whatsoever they may be, that are not by me or by my word, saith the Lord, shall be thrown down, and shall not remain after men are dead, neither in nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your God.

15. Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

16. Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

17. For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

18. And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.

19. And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

So essentially all of the instances where a marriage or any other connection) will not continue after death are enumerated first, then the one and only way for family relationships to endure eternally is explained. We believe this was taught in the time of Christ in the same manner. The Biblical record has some of the information but the most important parts are missing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to remember a few things regarding those verses. First, the Jews were not living the celestial gospel of Christ, nor did they have the Melchizedek Priesthood.

These marriages were made "until death do you part". They were not temple sealings, as the Jews did not have temple sealings nor the authority to do them, having rejected the Melchizedek Priesthood and its keys of authority back at Mt Sinai (D&C 84:19-27). So, because the people were not following the fullness of the gospel, they did not have eternal marriages, could not be exalted, and so would be angels through eternity.

If we were to accept this teaching as many read it (where there is no eternal marriage), then we would also have to accept other tenets of the Mosaic Law, rather than the new and higher teachings that Christ taught. These superseded the Mosaic Law, the Levitical Priesthood, with the Melchizedek Priesthood (Hebrews 5-7). While basic salvation comes through the Levitical/Aaronic Priesthood, exaltation comes through the power and ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood. Of course, all salvation and exaltation come only through the grace and atonement of Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is Jesus who teaches us that there is no marriage in heaven, not the Pharisees.

To marriage itself, for Catholics, the Sacraments prefigure heaven, just as the sacrifice of the lamb prefigured Jesus Christ. Christ fulfilled the law, and in the same way, He will fulfill all things, including our relationships to each other.

Marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic Church. It is divinely ordered (not as in decreed but as in created). Each family is in itself a "domestic church". Where children are raised to know God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Just as God is not alone, but a communion of three, so our families are made in this image, which is at its essence, love. The familial love we have for our families in this life will be perfected by Jesus and through Jesus in the next. In this, God withholds nothing. When we hear the Word of God say, there is no marriage in heaven, we understand it not as something that is ended, but that is fulfilled. Just as the sacrifice of the lamb by the Jews was fulfilled, in Jesus Christ.

Peace.

Edited by madeleine1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is Jesus who tells there is no marriage in heaven for those who follow the Mosaic Law. You are adding assumptions to what is written in the Bible, supporting your Catholic bias. The issue behind the event was not concerning Pharisees, but Sadduccees. This Jewish sect did not believe in angels, resurrection or life after death. So, their question to Jesus was focused more upon the idea of after life than of marriage.

Jesus spoke to them from the point of view of the Mosaic Law. He taught them there is an after life, but because this woman and her husbands had not the full gospel, they would be angels rather than divine beings.

I agree that for the Catholic view of things, there won't be marriage in heaven. You get what you believe in. However, What you miss in your statement is that marriage precedes the Mosaic Law. God married Adam and Eve in the Garden and stated that they would become "one flesh." Jesus does not fulfill the promises made to Adam and Eve or to Abraham. Jesus fulfills the "law and the prophets", which consists of the Mosaic Law and the prophets that preached under the Mosaic Law. Jesus restored the ancient forms that Adam, Enoch, Noah and Abraham had. For this purpose, God promised Abraham enduring seed that would be as the stars in heaven or the sands of the sea. In Hebrews, Paul recognized this and taught that such a promise did not end.

Some early Christian texts, such as the Gospel of Phillip, teach that marriage and the temple go hand in hand:

The Lord did everything in a mystery, a baptism and a chrism and a eucharist and a redemption and a bridal chamber. [...] he said, "I came to make the things below like the things above, and the things outside like those inside. I came to unite them in the place." [...] here through types [...]and images.

...

There were three buildings specifically for sacrifice in Jerusalem. The one facing the west was called "The Holy". Another, facing south, was called "The Holy of the Holy". The third, facing east, was called "The Holy of the Holies", the place where only the high priest enters. Baptism is "the Holy" building. Redemption is the "Holy of the Holy". "The Holy of the Holies" is the bridal chamber. Baptism includes the resurrection and the redemption; the redemption (takes place) in the bridal chamber.

....

If the woman had not separated from the man, she should not die with the man. His separation became the beginning of death. Because of this, Christ came to repair the separation, which was from the beginning, and again unite the two, and to give life to those who died as a result of the separation, and unite them. But the woman is united to her husband in the bridal chamber. Indeed, those who have united in the bridal chamber will no longer be separated.

So, some early Christians did understand that the higher law of Christ included an eternal marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello - I'd say that it is LDS who read a teaching of Jesus as not applying to themselves. What else in scripture to you think Jesus taught that does not apply?

The "Gospel of Philip" teaches what Catholicism teaches. It doesn't say anything about physical temple building but likens the Sacraments to aspects of the temple.

Jesus fulfilled the purpose of the Jewish temple in Himself. He is our sacred temple, His Church is the temple, and is comprised of living stones, who are the baptized. We die with Him in order to be raised again.

Peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a non-LDS view eternal marriage can seem a great blessing--probably one that spurs some to consider conversion. They have happy marriages, and want them to continue forever. On the other hand, others may look to the teaching with great trepidation. Their marriages may difficult at best, and the thought of them being eternal may seem more like the outer darkness than the Celestial Kingdom. This is one of those matters that LDS will likely feel secure in, and the rest of us are likely equally secure that we either don't need eternal families, or that God has something even better. I will testify to this--I have one of those happy marriages. I could be attracted by the idea of mine being eternal. Irregardless, I am confident that what I face in God's kingdom will be wonderful beyond my imagination. And again, I am certain that I will know my wife in that kingdom, and will remember every instant I had with her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is Jesus who tells there is no marriage in heaven for those who follow the Mosaic Law. You are adding assumptions to what is written in the Bible, supporting your Catholic bias. The issue behind the event was not concerning Pharisees, but Sadduccees. This Jewish sect did not believe in angels, resurrection or life after death. So, their question to Jesus was focused more upon the idea of after life than of marriage.

Jesus spoke to them from the point of view of the Mosaic Law. He taught them there is an after life, but because this woman and her husbands had not the full gospel, they would be angels rather than divine beings.

I agree that for the Catholic view of things, there won't be marriage in heaven. You get what you believe in. However, What you miss in your statement is that marriage precedes the Mosaic Law. God married Adam and Eve in the Garden and stated that they would become "one flesh." Jesus does not fulfill the promises made to Adam and Eve or to Abraham. Jesus fulfills the "law and the prophets", which consists of the Mosaic Law and the prophets that preached under the Mosaic Law. Jesus restored the ancient forms that Adam, Enoch, Noah and Abraham had. For this purpose, God promised Abraham enduring seed that would be as the stars in heaven or the sands of the sea. In Hebrews, Paul recognized this and taught that such a promise did not end.

(Luke 20:34) Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

I don't see any reference expressed or implied to "the Mosaic Law" in these and previous passages, but to the resurrection. " But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection".

If you are resurrected then you neither marry nor are given in marriage.

Some early Christian texts, such as the Gospel of Phillip, teach that marriage and the temple go hand in hand:

The gospel of Philip is a Gnostic gospel, presenting a Gnostic viewpoint of Jesus and His teachings. It was not written by the Apostle Philip or anyone who had ever met Jesus. The original writing of the gospel of Philip is dated to the 3rd century A.D. at the earliest, at least 200 years after Jesus’ death. The only value in studying the gospel of Philip is in learning what heresies existed in the early centuries of the Christian church.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

prisonchaplain - I agree to your point, only with the added comment that I believe 100% that if I am judged to be with God in heaven, and my husband is also, we will be united in Christ. I have yet to figure out why Mormons think this is something less then perfect, as though Jesus would do something half way for us, and nothing more. It really is something I don't understand about LDS belief, at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madeleine1, when you say that you will be "united in Christ" with your husband, do you mean that you believe you will be husband and wife in heaven? If so, your belief is virtually identical to LDS teaching. It's my understanding that Protestants and Catholics do not believe we will live as married people in heaven. I will love my wife more than I do now, but how we relate to one another will be different and superior. How that will look I do not know. However, I trust God that I will not be disappointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a non-LDS view eternal marriage can seem a great blessing--probably one that spurs some to consider conversion. They have happy marriages, and want them to continue forever. On the other hand, others may look to the teaching with great trepidation. Their marriages may difficult at best, and the thought of them being eternal may seem more like the outer darkness than the Celestial Kingdom. This is one of those matters that LDS will likely feel secure in, and the rest of us are likely equally secure that we either don't need eternal families, or that God has something even better. I will testify to this--I have one of those happy marriages. I could be attracted by the idea of mine being eternal. Irregardless, I am confident that what I face in God's kingdom will be wonderful beyond my imagination. And again, I am certain that I will know my wife in that kingdom, and will remember every instant I had with her.

And I think this is one reason why there are levels in the Celestial Kingdom, as well as the other kingdoms. Not everyone will want to be married eternally, and it won't be forced on them. Each will receive the maximum heaven they seek and desire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madeleine1, when you say that you will be "united in Christ" with your husband, do you mean that you believe you will be husband and wife in heaven? If so, your belief is virtually identical to LDS teaching. It's my understanding that Protestants and Catholics do not believe we will live as married people in heaven. I will love my wife more than I do now, but how we relate to one another will be different and superior. How that will look I do not know. However, I trust God that I will not be disappointed.

No, I do not believe we will be married. I do believe our relationship, the unity of our marriage, will be perfected in and through, Jesus Christ. I too do not know what that will look like. Heaven, not being a place of suffering or despair, but that of the destiny that God has prepared for us. It is God who understands our every need. We lack this understanding ourselves, and so we are reliant on Him.

Peace.

Edited by madeleine1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I think this is one reason why there are levels in the Celestial Kingdom, as well as the other kingdoms. Not everyone will want to be married eternally, and it won't be forced on them. Each will receive the maximum heaven they seek and desire.

I would like to understand what you are saying, but it sounds to me that you believe that a person's who's marriage is something of a nightmare would be punished for not wanting to be with the person who is the cause of their suffering. (?) For example, a spouse who is abused or neglected, or even seriously harmed by the person they are married to. Do you mean to say that by not wanting to be with such a person for eternity that this endangers one's eternal station?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a an interesting link that shows how the Catholic sacraments and liturgy actually are connected to LDS temple ideas:

Catholic Liturgy and the Mormon Temple

Old Testament scholar and Protestant minister Margaret Barker discusses the ancient temple liturgy in ways that are very comfortable to Latter-day Saints:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/BelongingintheTemple.pdf

And for those rejecting the Gospel of Phillip, etc., just because it is believed to be a Gnostic text - how do we know today that such was not believed by many early Christians? The fact that Christians disagreed on various doctrines anciently does not make what Christians believe 1700 years later any more or less accurate than what they believed. So, claiming that we shouldn't consider an ancient text, simply because it was Gnostic, is a non-sequitur.

As for madeleine's last comment, I think you are trying too hard to make LDS temple marriage sound like a terrible thing, rather than talking in context. It would be like someone thinking that the Catholic eucharist is cannabalism because you believe the wine and bread literally turn into the blood and body of Christ.

We believe that wicked people will not obtain celestial glory. If a person is being evil to his/her spouse, that person will not obtain an eternal marriage, even if sealed in a temple. All who obey the commandments of God, who seek to be Christ-like, and who receive the ordinances of exaltation will have these blessings. And if the spouse does not qualify, then that righteous person will receive an eternal marriage with someone else righteous of their choosing.

Since Catholics do not believe in divorce for any reason, you see some things differently than we do. We do allow temple sealing cancellations for infidelity, abuse, etc. It is a sad reality of our mortal existence. Better for all people to repent and live as Christ would have us do, giving of our best to those around us.

Now, there are those righteous, both inside and outside the LDS Church, who do not have the desire to be married eternally. They are not forced into a marriage by God in order to be in His presence. There are single people in the Celestial Kingdom, who have chosen to be single for themselves. That is what I meant.

For Catholics, the mystery is the important thing to believe in. For LDS, having continuing revelation and to have the mysteries revealed to us is important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think it sounds overly complex, where the Gospel is so beautifully simple.

Catholics who are in an abusive relationship are not required to remain married. A person who has received the Sacrament of Marriage has made certain vows before God. If those vows are broken by one of the spouses, the other is not required to remain married.

As to what early Christians believed, of course there were false prophets and teachers, which is why Jesus Christ established His Church, born at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on the baptized. There must be a place for people to learn of Jesus Christ, and the Good News of His Resurrection: Our Salvation. To guide the faithful through the thorns and thistles, such as those of gnostic teachers.

It is a fundamental difference between Catholicism and Protestantism (Mormonism being a child of Protestantism). Catholics believe that God has never left us orphans, and has guided His Church through the ages. To not be Catholic requires that you believe Jesus abandoned His people!

The question of Canon then becomes one of, if you don't believe the Catholic Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, produced a correct Bible, why do you use it? Why not add the "Gospel of Phillip"?

Peace.

Edited by madeleine1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And for those rejecting the Gospel of Phillip, etc., just because it is believed to be a Gnostic text - how do we know today that such was not believed by many early Christians? The fact that Christians disagreed on various doctrines anciently does not make what Christians believe 1700 years later any more or less accurate than what they believed. So, claiming that we shouldn't consider an ancient text, simply because it was Gnostic, is a non-sequitur.

Ram

There is actually no such thing as Gnostic Christians, because true Christianity and Gnosticism are mutually exclusive systems of belief.

The Gnostics held a distinctly different view of the Bible, of Jesus Christ, of salvation, and of virtually every other major Christian doctrine. However, they did not have any writings by the Apostles to give legitimacy to their beliefs.

That is why and how the Gnostic gospels were created. The Gnostics fraudulently attached the names of famous Christians to their writings, such as the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Philip, the gospel of Mary, etc.

The principles of Gnosticism contradict what it means to be a Christian. Therefore, while some forms of Gnosticism may claim to be Christian, they are in fact decidedly non-Christian.

Gnosticism is based on false premises. It espouses a dualism regarding spirit and matter. Gnostics assert that matter is inherently evil and spirit is good. As a result of this presupposition, Gnostics believe anything done in the body, even the grossest sin, has no meaning because real life exists in the spirit realm only.

Gnostics teach that the path of salvation or liberation is through the attainment of Gnosis (secret knowledge), the knowledge of the sacred truths of the spiritual universe. They believe that each human being has within himself a divine spark. Further, the Gnostic Savior does not save. Gnosticism lacks the idea of atonement. There is no sin to be atoned for. Ignorance of the Gnosis would be the only sin. The Gnostic Savior has no human nature, he is an Aeon, not a man; he only seemed to be a man.

They believe that Jesus’ physical body was not real, but only “seemed” to be physical, and that His spirit descended upon Him at His baptism, but left Him just before His crucifixion. This teaching destroys not only the true humanity of Jesus, but also the atonement, for Jesus must not only have been truly God, but also the truly human (and physically real) man who actually suffered and died upon the cross in order to be the acceptable substitutionary sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 2:14-17). The biblical view of Jesus affirms His complete humanity as well as His full deity. The early church fathers were nearly unanimous in recognizing the Gnostic gospels as promoting false teachings about virtually every key Christian doctrine. There are countless contradictions between the Gnostic gospels and the true Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Gnostic gospels should be rejected outright as not belonging in the Bible and not representing the genuine Christian faith.

The Jesus of the Gnostics is truly a different Jesus (2 Cor. 11:4) and a false gospel.

A true follower of Jesus Christ will NOT find truth in Gnosticism and shouldn't consider any of it's heresies.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And for those rejecting the Gospel of Phillip, etc., just because it is believed to be a Gnostic text - how do we know today that such was not believed by many early Christians? The fact that Christians disagreed on various doctrines anciently does not make what Christians believe 1700 years later any more or less accurate than what they believed. So, claiming that we shouldn't consider an ancient text, simply because it was Gnostic, is a non-sequitur.

I remember accidently citing the Gospel of Thomas as a primary source, demonstrating what early Christians believed and practice. The professor generously only docked me half a grade. ;)

Seriously, Gnosticism was an early heresy. The Apostle Paul even counters some pre-Gnostic teachings in his letters. To suggest that the Gospel of Philip is authorative because it was written early on and talked about Jesus is to use a very low measure. Centuries from now, would we advise scholars to simply conflate documents from your Church, the Watchtower, and the writings of New Age Gurus (some of whom consider Jesus an Enlightened One)? Consider the many strings here in which we non-LDS are told not even to consider the Journal of Discourses to be very authorative. No, I would suggest that it is pretty safe to discount the Gospel of Philip as anything other than the writings of a Christian heretic from the 300s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that Gnostics were heretics. However, if you get past Protestant Bible school to the actual scholarly programs, you'll find that many consider the Gospel of Thomas to be Q (or related to Q), the source for many of Jesus' sayings in Matthew and Luke.

And just because they were heretics, does not mean all their teachings were wrong. As it is, many early Christians agreed with some of their concepts; and later Christianity adopted some of their beliefs. Also, Gnostics was a large group of Christian sects, some of which were close to proto-orthodoxy, while others were definitely further out in left field.

We should not ignore the writings, even if we do not necessarily agree with all of them. Do you agree with St Augustine that children who are not baptized will burn in hell? If no, why not? He was and is considered orthodox by both Catholics and Protestants.

BTW, Madeleine, Mormons are NOT Protestant (even though many lump us in). We are a Restorationist Christian church. We believe the Catholic Church fell away from priesthood authority and revelation. We also believe that Protestantism was a reaction to Catholic excesses, and formed their own faith without proper authority and revelation from God. We agree with Catholics that priesthood authority is necessary. We do not agree with Protestants that God's ancient apostolic authority was replaced with a priesthood of all believers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share