More on the Mormon thing
May 22nd, 2007 ~ La Vida IglesiaFor those who don’t like scrolling down eight or twelve screens deep to follow a comment thread, I’m posting Garry’s latest comment here. Garry had commented before on the post back here about the Mormon Church and the Nicene Creed, and asking me, in effect, why I’m such a meanie.
To which I replied that I’m trying to get at the truth, and that of all the untruths in Mormon doctrine, the primary one to me may be the assumption that the Christian church fell into apostasy from the death of the apostles until Joseph Smith.
To which Garry replied:
I would be interested in your comments regarding the scriptures below. I think they refer to an apostasy, a falling away. The church was not alive as you would like to believe.
AMOS 11 ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall arun to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.ISAIAH 5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
MATTHEW 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7 For anation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations cfor my name’s sake.
10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many afalse prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
ACTS 28 ¶ Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall agrievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.2 TIMOTHY 1 This know also, that in the alast days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.Reformers also recognized this apostasy.
Starting in the 14th century with the Renaissance, people began to break free of old ways of thinking. Science, art, literature, and many other areas of learning began to prosper in Europe. The way opened for new ideas, exploration, and inventions.
All these new ideas and the increased availability of the Bible due to new printing techniques inspired many to evaluate what they knew and how they felt about religion. People such as John Wycliffe in England and John Calvin in Switzerland began to question the practices of the Christian church. They saw that the church in their time and the Church in New Testament times were not the same.
Martin Luther was another of these people, called reformers, who saw that some of the practices of the Christian church were incorrect. He was a religious and educated man, and he wanted to change the practices of the church that did not match the teachings of the Bible. In 1517, in an attempt to promote discussion on the practices of the church, Luther wrote a document, identified as his Ninety-five Theses, and nailed it to the door of a church in Wittenberg, Germany. This act marked the beginning of the Protestant Reformation.
Luther was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for his actions of protest, but he kept his desire to conform to the teachings of the Bible. He opened the way for other reformers through his years of work and his German translation of the Bible. Many followed Luther and others like him who fought to reform the Christian church or to establish new churches. These people were called Protestants.
What would you tell Luther and his followers, Calvin and his followers, Wesley etc.? Many saw this apostasy happening, and had the couareg to speak up. What think ye?
I’m really more interested in what others have to say. But here’s what comes to my mind:
- All the Bible verses: Your interpretation is not the teaching of my church. And it doesn’t really make any sense, either. I’ll leave it at that.
- Protestant reformers: It’s for certain that there were problems in the Catholic Church at the time of the Protestant Reformation. As for what I’d say to Luther or Calvin, who knows? I’m neither Protestant nor Catholic, so we might be able to have a nice chat. We could certainly talk with great love about our worship of the Triune God, the complete and saving work of Jesus Christ and the place of the Bible — and the Bible alone — as the Church’s sacred and inspired book of faith.
What’s more relevant, given your good words about reformers, is what you would say to Joseph Smith’s son who split off from the LDS to form the Community of Christ? Was he a reformer? What would you say to the head of the Restored Church of Latter Day Saints, or the Church of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) or the Church of Latter Day Saints (Temple Lot)? Wikipedia lists 29 denominations that have come out of the Latter Day Saints movement in its mere 160-year history, (HERE) including four that broke off before Smith died and nine that have broken off from 1980-2000. And that’s not even to count the hundreds of “fundamentalist” Mormon sects - link HERE. So I’m not thinking that the “reform is king” card is a winner for you.
There’s more I could say, but I’d like to hear from others.
Contents available under a
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:56 am
I’m glad you’d like to hear from others, but I’d actually like to hear your answer to Garry’s questions. He did bring up a lot of good verses that seem to point towards a falling away, and of course didn’t all the Reformers, the founders of most Protestant churchs, beleive that their had been a falling away, or apostacy? If they felt like the Catholic church was still the true church that Christ established, with the same doctorin and authority, why would they “protest” it? Do you believe that their was a falling away? if no, then I’ll assume that you’re Catholic, because that is the stance of the Catholic Faith. If yes, you believe their was a falling away, how do you think we can get back to that true Christianity found in the Bible. Of course by studing the life of Christ in Bible is the obvious answer, but as you’ve clearly shown us, many Bible verses can be interpreted to mean a wide range of things. I’d like to hear you say more.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:22 am
Not as alive as I would like to believe?? Wow, you mean it was a dead chuch that put together the Holy Bible upon which all Christians base their faith? You mean it was a dead church that spread the Gospel throughout the known world and established it as the anchor of a vast majority civilizations? Was it a dead church that converted emperors, performed countless miracles, and wrote extensively about the faith, writings we still have today and upon which nearly every denomination looks to for insight to what the early church believed? If you rip this foundation out and say it was all apostate, then there is no true Christianity - that true Christianity was only meant for the 12 Apostles and maybe a few stray believers after them negates your faith and mine. If they were not alive whose fire has changed the world, then how would you define an alive church?
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:37 am
Gary, I’ll comment more about the scriptures if I can find time. However, as most of my scholarly experience is in historical theology, let me comment about a few things regarding your understanding of the reformation.
To paint Luther and Calvin as radical reformers is not accurate at all. Neither were Hus nor Wycliff. In fact, many of their critiques of Roman Catholicism are echoed by the earlier schism between Rome and the East. The statement “They saw that the church in their time and the Church in New Testament times were not the same.” is patently false. They viewed that Roman Catholicism had wandered into to error and their schisms were an attempt to restore the faith TO the Roman Catholic church. In fact, generally speaking, the errors that they addressed are *later* developments, particularly 1000AD and later. Luther and Calvin both held that, in some sense, the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. Both kept the historic liturgical structure of the Mass and both movements excommunicated those who abandonded the historic doctrines of the Church such as the doctrines professed by the 7 eccumenical councils (though Calvin is pretty tough against icons) and even the ever-virginity of Mary! In an accurate picture of history on sees that the Reformers did three things:
1. Kept *most* of the history, practice and theology of the Roman Catholic church.
2. Corrected some real abuses (especially liturgically)
3. Systematized their new churches around their own personal philosophies.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:27 am
Dave,
I did answer Garry’s questions. He asked what I would tell the Reformers and I told him we’d have a lot in common (but see Nathaniel’s comment above for another problem with pretending that Calvin and Luther support Mormon claims).
Garry asked what I thought of the verses and I told him. As you say, many Bible verses can be interpreted in many ways. And by the way, on the central issue of the life of the Church during the first 15 centuries of her existence, see Nicodemus’ comment above. Major dittos to that.
Your assumptions: Hoo boy. You guys just keep firing blanks. I don’t argue for or against the Protestant Reformation, because I’m neither Protestant nor Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church split off from the Eastern Orthodox Church about 400 years before the Reformation. Check out the timeline HERE. You’re missing a lot of Christian history.
But all three branches of the Christian faith — Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant — are united in central beliefs. Those beliefs are best summed up in the Nicene Creed, which is why it is said in liturgical churches every week to affirm what Christians have held to be true for all 20 centuries of our existence.
Since you’d like to see me answer questions, how about you answer the question I put to Mormons before all these comments. If you don’t like how I’ve edited the Nicene Creed, tell me how you would do it.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Of Amos 8:10ff:
This passage is fairly popular among the writers in the first 300 years of Christianity. Amos 8:10 is universally seen as a reference to fulfillment of the Jewish Feasts in the Passion of Christ. This is found in Irenaeus (Heresies, 4.33.12), Tertullian (Apology 7.10), Cyprian (On Jealousy and Envy 2.23), Lactantius (Institutes 4.19 and 8.46). More specifially, Gregory Thaumaturgus points out that while the Feasts of the Jews are made into sorrow in comparison with the joy of our own repentance found in Christ who is proclaimed in the Annunciation (Second Homily on the Annunciation). Finally, Turtullian really fleshes out (no pun intended) Amos 8:11 by connecting it with the parable of the prodigal son. The prodigal hungers for the Word of the Lord and travels all around seeking for it, but it is only found by returning home. It is here that the prodigal is filled by the fatted calf, which Tertullian explains is Christ and more specifically the Eucharist as his very body and blood.
Yet the interpretation of Amos 8:10ff as referring to the corruption of the Church is nowhere to be found. Surely if this is the case *someone* would have mentioned it!
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Isaiah 24:5… wow, where to begin. The verse basically says “People did bad stuff and now the earth suffers.” It doesn’t really refer to anything with specificity. Its a BIG jump from here to “The Church was corrupt after the apostles.” Its like taking your car to a mecanic where he says “you need to change your oil more frequently or your car will get engine damage” and you take it to mean “Chevy is part of the illumenati and is trying to rule the world.” Any arguement from this verse is simply non sequitur.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Hi Grace and Gary, Gee, where to begin? Gary’s post is loaded with false assumptions regarding Church history, the greatest of which is that the Catholic Church was THE only Church until the Reformers split off due to its apostasy. This is typical protestant “Church history”… after the last apostle died the entire Church went to Rome in a handbasket and depending on your denomination the New Testament Church was restored to its former pre-Rome dogma, doctrine and apostolic practice by your leader. When Joseph Smith came on the scene there were several “restoration movements” happening, including the Stone/Campbell movement, from which one of the founders of Mormonism came. Unfortunately, the whole premise and assumption is flawed. There have always been apostates and schisms and heresies, even in apostolic times while the apostles were still alive and teaching and writing. Not one of them ever suggested that that was indicative of the ENTIRE Church being apostate or “in captivity” or however you want to frame it. “They saw the their Church and the Church of the NT were not the same….”? And how would one know what the Church of the NT looks like? The BIG question for Gary would be “If St. Paul walked into a Mormon Church would he recognize it as apostolic and Christian”? Church history and the NT say no. (I might humbly suggest he listen to our radio program archives on the topics of dogma, sacrament, icons, liturgy, worship, creeds and sola scriptura)
May 24th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
s-p,
I’ve been thinking about sola scriptura a lot with all this, so I definitely need to go check out your archives. I feel inclined to lay a lot of blame on that one practice right now, but maybe I’m just being crabby.
Other things that this exercise has made me want to brush up on and know more about:
* Apostolic succession — those were just happy words, but in light of the accusations I’ve been hearing, it suddenly seems to carry great weight in the defense of the Church throughout her venerable lifespan
* the Ecumenical Councils — interesting to me to note that the mindset that life ended with the last apostle and magically picked up again at the Reformation (or with the Great Awakening, or with this leader or that one) neatly exises the periods of the martyrs, the monastics, the church fathers and the councils. That hardly seems like it can be an accident. A church built without those pillars to support it would always be flimsy and doomed to repeat mistakes, I would think.
Garry, Dave et al — if you’re still out there, s-p’s always-thought-provoking radio program is Our Life in Christ — www.ourlifeinchrist.com.
May 24th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Hi Grace and all, We have programs on our audio archives on apostolic succession, Orthodox ecclesiology, the Creeds, “East and West”, and the Petrine doctrine which outlines the 7 Councils and the role Rome played in them which would be pertinent to those whose take on Church history is that Rome controlled the ancient Church. (AND the sola scriptura series…) This is important stuff for anyone who wishes to dialogue with an Orthodox Christian about the validity of any modern claims to Biblically restoring a Church they view as having gone totally apostate in the early centuries.
May 27th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
I think the honest answer to Garry’s questions is that most of us regard the passages as he mentions as speaking to the dangers of apostasy. It happens. Whole nations have disappeared into apostasy. Think of the numerous pauline epistles that warn the recipients of false teachers.
But since Mormons have a different gospel, it’s natural for them to say we represent apostates, while we would recognize that Mormons fell for an Apostate. Technically, we Orthodox wouldn’t call Joseph Smith an Apostate, because he was probably not a baptized trinitarian christian to start with, but nevertheless, the growth of a sect, attracting thousands of Christians from America and England, would necessarily represent just the kind of falling away, of following a False Teacher, that these scriptures warn about. False teachers spring up all the time, and have, since the beginning.
Finally, the Reformers while castigating the Romans, NEVER went as far as the Mormons do, in saying that ALL of Christendom fell into apostasy. But there is a similarity of temperament. Protestants tend to see everything before Martin Luther as darkness and confusion. This is why Joseph Smith is such a characteristically American Protestant sectarian.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Garry,
I took the rare step of deleting your last comment. While you weren’t rude or abusive, you were taking advantage of my blog to proselytize your church (for 4 or 5 screens), and since I moderate the content on the blog, I’m going to spare my readers that. I’m sorry if that seems unfair, but … my blog, my rules.
Besides, you’re really just taking a lot of words to say very little. You didn’t address the comments of others, you merely typed in a lengthy apologia which doesn’t clear up anything. I already know that the Mormon church holds heterodox ideas — that’s been what all this has been about. Given that the Mormon church’s theology runs counter to the 20 centuries of Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic beliefs, the burden of proof is on the LDS and the language has to go outside of self-reference to be credible. You didn’t pass that test.