quote:Do LDS recognize the New Testament of both Protestants and Catholics as scripture or not? If so, on what authority?
From the Articles of Faith:
quote: 8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
posted
Do LDS recognize the New Testament of both Protestants and Catholics as scripture or not?
Well, yes and no. We officially recognize the Protestant Bible books as authoritative. That would include the Four Gospels, the letters of Paul, Peter, James, and John. We don't recognize all of the Catholic Bible books as Scripture that are known as the Apocrypha; although a revelation to Joseph Smith had this to say:
quote:1 VERILY, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;
2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.
3 Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.
4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;
5 And whoso is enlightened by the aSpirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;
6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.
If so, on what authority?
By the authority of Revelation declairing the Truth of the Bible. Also, how the Bible is used in the Revelations and by Priesthood Authorities as an official teaching tool acceptable by God.
That is only part of the story. In practice the Bible is used by Latter-day Saints in much the same way as other Christians. It tends to be seen in literalist ways similiar to evangilicals. In theory Mormons don't hold as high value of the TEXT as other Christians. In other words, there is no such idea of the innerancy and single sufficiantcy of the Bible. It was written, produced, and copied down by mortals - inspired as they might be. For Mormons, all Scripture is fluid and transformable through revelation.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay...while I don't agree with it I can understand your argument. You do undertand, though, that "Constantine founding the Catholic Church" is not an historical statement, but a theological one. And not one that is widely held.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand that is what people say. Although it might be considered a theological statement, I also believe it is an historical fact. I don't compartmentalize theology and history.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it might be a good idea. It makes a difference. To say that, because you have theological differences with the Catholic Church, thus you consider that it was founded by Constantine, disregards the historical fact that people considered themselves to be part of the church prior to Constantine's intervention.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't disregard. It is something I have considered. I simply don't believe, and I hold my beliefs as historical realities.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm LDS, and I reject the idea that Constantine founded the Catholic church for any number of historical reasons, not least: 1) many of the primary features of Catholicism date to before his reign, and 2) he did not, as is sometimes asserted, make Christianity/Catholicism the state religion.
Was there a notable Constantinian shift? Sure. He had a huge impact on the history of Christianity. But I can't see any way in which he "founded" Catholicism.
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Catholic "Apocrypha" are all in the Old Testament... so, as I understand, the New Testament Canon is agreed upon by Catholics, Protestants, and LDS (seperating those last two for convenience here).
Since that Canon was agreed upon in the councils you are deriding here, Occasional, I'm not sure why they should be right about that and wrong about everything else, though it's certainly possible.
But thank you all for clarifying. Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its extremely likely that there were many early churches that used the word "catholic" within their name but ultimately disappeared or were inducted into the truely Catholic church that eventually formed.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp, both at the end of the first century and the beginning og the second, referred to the "Catholic Church" in their writings. They are certainly foundational to the "truly" Catholic Church rather than being inducted or disappeared into it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Spanish you have La Iglesia Catolica Apostolica Romana (Catholic) and La Iglesia Catolica Apostolica Reformada (Lutheren), La Iglesia Catolica Apostolica Anglicana (Church of England), etc.
Many churches still use Catholic in their name.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I cannot read their actual references that you say they make, I will pass on judging their actual implications. But I agree with Artemisia Tridentata that many churches could easily use the word "Catholic" in their names while holding many beliefs that are vastly different then the Catholic church that formed or exists today.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Apostle's Creed is from around 250. Monasticism is from around 270. The first Roman pope was in 189. Excommunication (which implies authority) dates back at least to that pope, but possibly to Christ's words to the apostles. Constantine's vision came later, in 312.
To deny Catholicism before Constantine is simply to redefine "Catholicism" to mean "not before Constantine." We can expect Catholics to react to this much as American Indians might react if you tell them their ancestors weren't really Americans.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would guess that most churches nowadays that have the word Catholic in them probably had roots in Catholicism at some point. Like the Lutheran and Anglican examples. I'm not sure why those examples mean anything to this conversation.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: As I cannot read their actual references that you say they make, I will pass on judging their actual implications.
Some examples:
St. Ignatius: "You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8).
St. Polycarp: "The Church of God that sojourns in Smyrna, to the Church of God that sojourns in Philomelium, and to all the dioceses of the holy and Catholic Church in every place" (Epistle of the Church at Smyrna, preface).
And a description of his words at his martydom (written fairly contemporaneously)
"Polycarp had finished his prayer, in which he remembered everyone with whom he had ever been acquainted . . . and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world."
And:
"Now with the apostles and all the just, [Polycarp] is glorifying God and the Father Almighty, and he is blessing our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior of our souls, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world"
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing I should clarify is that I do believe the original church as created by Christ and lead by his apostles could be called "A Catholic Church" whether it continued intact into the present Catholic church is what I dispute.
It is generally accepted that after the Apostle Peter (The recognized leader of Christ's Church) died that Linus who was the bishop of the church in Rome became the next leader of the entire church, who maintene its uniformity in belief, and practice.
But where is the precident for this? Jesus ordaines 12 apostles to run the church, and when Judas fell away the apostles met together and ordained a new apostle (this is all in The Acts). Even the Catholic church holds that Peter was not the last apostle to die, John is generally held to have outlasted him. So why then was Linus a mere bishop of the church in Rome given "allegedly" the reigns of the entire church over some of the other apostles?
I am not trying to be offensive, but it seems to me that the central authority of the apostles was destroyed even before 200AD and by the time Constantine called the 1st Council of Nicea a central leader for the whole church had long since gone missing. There were numerous bishops, deacons, and Presbytery but not 1 apostle much less a full quorum of 12.
The Writings of the Apostles are littered with warnings about false teachings and to be wary of the teachers who spread them.
We also know there were strong disagreements even amongst the apostles as to certain docterinal teachings.
These points and some others I have not had time to write or flesh out cause me to believe that a complete organized church that everybody belonged to surviving from the time of Jesus's ressurection to the present day seems extremely unlikely.
Indeed the fact Constantine had to call a conference of Nicea to decide whether Jesus was one in purpose or in substance with the father shows that heresy and false teachings had already crept into the church. With the basic idea of the nature of the relationship between Jesus and his Father being in question, how can we believe there was uniformity amongst the leadership, with 1 man or even a group universally recognized?
There may have been a bishop of the church of Rome all the way from St Peter, but I have already questioned the legitimacy of the idea that the bishop of Rome automatically rises and grasps the reigns of the whole church questionable, and lacking in precident. There are no scriptures that suggest that this is the correct process. But there are scriptures that mention the precidence of maintaning a full quorum of 12 apostles that govern the church.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is generally accepted that after the Apostle Peter (The recognized leader of Christ's Church) died that Linus who was the bishop of the church in Rome became the next leader of the entire church, who maintene its uniformity in belief, and practice.
posted
Scott, I wasn't so much asking where Jesus ordained twelve apostles, as where he ordained them "to run the church".
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think the problem here is that it hasn't made clear that the integrity of the Catholic Church is not dependent on a central authority, being completely organized, or even (on many issues) "uniformity of belief and practice". This is a common misconception.
We were the Catholic Church before "the Pope" was "the Pope".
And our understanding does grow and change. I would hope so. As I've said, God is not something we can ever completely understand.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: "Generally accepted" by who?
Catholics, I imagine...
Actually, early on, all the apostolic churches were considered more or less equal. Rome did not necessarily have more authority than the others.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Hmm. I think it's implied if not strictly laid out.
:shrug:
For Mormons, the name we've given to the leading council of our Church is the 12 Apostles. There are actually 15 apostles, including the First Presidency. Historically, an apostle was anyone who was "sent forth" to be a special witness of Christ's resurrection (see Acts 1). I don't think that leadership roles were exactly necessary to the calling, but it may have developed that way.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but you're a Mormon. The whole quorom thing is important to you. I (and just about every Christian in the history of Christianity) don't really see this. BlackBlade's arguing that if you accept this LDS principle that isn't actually in the Bible, then the other forms of Christianity got it wrong. Which is fine, but he's trying to pass it off as a non-LDS centric argument, which it most definitely is not.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, I was referring to the idea that Linus was successor to Peter rather than his having any particular authority. The primacy of Rome definitely developed later, as you say, so well...
So, the idea is not that Peter handed the reins off to Linus, but that Linus was a part of Peter's "lineage" so to speak.
The authority vested in the Bishop of Rome is as Kate points out, considerably less than most people seem to think it is.
Is this the wrong thread for this?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I (and just about every Christian in the history of Christianity) don't really see this.
That's interesting. What do other religions think the 12 were for?
Any leadership capacity tied to them?
quote:Yes, but you're a Mormon.
You know, Squicky, I'm a bit insulted. I consider myself to have deeply held and CONSIDERED beliefs. Implying that BECAUSE I'm X, therefore I must perforce BELIEVE in X precludes my capacity to think and evaluate things independently and without bias.
It's a difficult task, to think that someone with whom you disagree may have come to their opinions on basis of logic and reason, rather than misguided cultural inheritance-- but do try.
I hold myself to be a convert to Mormonism, even though I was born to the faith.
[ April 27, 2006, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, it is generally accepted that they had a leadership role, but this role is not assumed to be completely exclusive nor central to the foundation of the the Church. St. Paul, for example, though not an ordained Apostle, is still an authority bearing leader of the early Church.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you tell me why you make the distinction? I don't see how your objection has any bearing on this discussion.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jesus ordaines 12 apostles to run the church, and when Judas fell away the apostles met together and ordained a new apostle (this is all in The Acts). Even the Catholic church holds that Peter was not the last apostle to die, John is generally held to have outlasted him. So why then was Linus a mere bishop of the church in Rome given "allegedly" the reigns of the entire church over some of the other apostles?
I am not trying to be offensive, but it seems to me that the central authority of the apostles was destroyed even before 200AD and by the time Constantine called the 1st Council of Nicea a central leader for the whole church had long since gone missing. There were numerous bishops, deacons, and Presbytery but not 1 apostle much less a full quorum of 12.
quote:There were numerous bishops, deacons, and Presbytery but not 1 apostle much less a full quorum of 12.
I'm trying to point out that this sentence doesn't matter in terms of the Church being correct or not unless you accept specific ideas about the role and trasmission of apostolic authority.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I think that there may be some confusion about what is meant by apostolic. I am not aware of any Catholic doctrine that indicates that we need to have any sort of a quorum. There were (I should look this up, but I think) six apostolic communities that made up the Church.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know, Squicky, I'm a bit insulted. I consider myself to have deeply held and CONSIDERED beliefs. Implying that BECAUSE I'm X, therefore I must perforce BELIEVE in X precludes my capacity to think and evaluate things independently and without bias.
It's a difficult task, to think that someone with whom you disagree may have come to their opinions on basis of logic and reason, rather than misguided cultural inheritance-- but do try.
I hold myself to be a convert to Mormonism, even though I was born to the faith.
I said nothing about this. You accept the Mormon teaching on the Apostles and such. It's normal for you to parse the Bible in such a way that it implies that these beliefs are correct. Which, again, is fine, but you should realize that the implication that is so clear to you is not clear to most people who don't hold the same beliefs as you.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Apostles thought that the post of apostle was important enough to replace Judas, and to keep ordaining apostles-- Barnabas anb Paul, and James the brother of Jesus, for example.
I KNOW that the word quorum isn't used in the Bible-- I understand that that may be a Mormon-centric term.
What do other religions think that an apostle is?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Early followers of Jesus who spread the word of Christianity and started and led various communities of followers - all of which made up the Catholic Church. Those who were ssent out. Theologians. Writers.
Regarding "twelve". I'm not necessarily saying it is the case here, but the writers of scripture often used numbers for their symbolic rather than their historic value.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Early disciple." In the strict sense, it's used as a historical term only, with no modern equivilent. In a looser sense, it is sometimes used for an early advocate of any new way of thinking, or the first person to carry a particular message to a particular place. (In that sense, calling Quim the "apostle to the piggies" in Speaker would fit.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know Catholics and their nearer offshoots are very big on "apostolic succession" involving direct passing on of the apostolic mantle as with Matthias, except it isn't a one to one replacement...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the Catholic and Anglican Church, the authority of the Church flows from the Apostles, in, as Jim said, apostolic succession. The various ordained participate in the apostolic succession and thus in apostolic powers and authority. There is no indication in either the Bible or early writings that there was any concern about a council of 12, outside of the original, or in direct, one to one sucession.
I don't know so much about the Protestant sects. They've got a lot of different ideas about a lot of things. The view that I've come across most often is that the personal relationship that each man or woman has with God is what confers "authority" and that the Apostles were specially selected teachers and spreaders of Jesus' message whose were necessary at one point, but no longer.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Early disciple." In the strict sense, it's used as a historical term only, with no modern equivilent.
DKW-- Hmm. Why does Jesus seperate out the apostles from the disciples (Luke 6, I believe)? From my reading, the mantle of apostleship seems to hold a greater burden of responsability than that of discipleship.
Also, can you explain what you mean that "it's used as a historical term only?"
quote:There is no indication in either the Bible or early writings that there was any concern about a council of 12, outside of the original, or in direct, one to one sucession.
I'm interested in your take on the end of Acts 1, where Peter and the other eleven apostles replace Judas. There is concern shown that there be at least twelve apostles.
Additionally, we know from other writings that three more were called (though I can't find the circumstances under which each were called): Paul, Baranabas, and James.
Further, Paul writes to the Ephesians and calls the apostles part of the foundation of the church; he implies in Ephesians 4 that apostles are given for the perfection of the church.
quote:You accept the Mormon teaching on the Apostles and such. It's normal for you to parse the Bible in such a way that it implies that these beliefs are correct.
What I dislike about this is the word "accept." Perhaps it's unintended-- but to me, it implies a caricature of blind faith. I don't "accept" the Mormon teachings on this-- the teachings are MINE through reason, study and prayer.
It's like saying, "Well OF COURSE you believe in medicating for ADHD-- you're a psychiatrist!"
Does that make sense?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm interested in your take on the end of Acts 1, where Peter and the other eleven apostles replace Judas. There is concern shown that there be at least twelve apostles.
Yes, that would be why I referenced the original council of 12, which would include Matthias. The Apostles pre-resurrection were followers, not leaders. (Also, I think you meant Peter and the other ten apostles.)
For the rest, yes, the Apostles, regardless of tradition were considered important. See for example my post about apostolic sucession. No one is disputing that they are important. Other than that, I don't see what point you're trying to make.
See, here's the thing. It's not in the Bible or history of the early Church that there's this obvious established thing that you need twelve direct successors to the Apostles that everyone but the LDS just ignored. It's fine to believe this, but recognize that it's an LDS concept and that other traditions have other ways of dealing with apostolic authority, such that they're not obviously all apostates.
---
As for your odd defintion of accept, I can't stop you from bending over backwards to take offense when none is meant. So go nuts. I never expected the apology you owe me anyway.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well this debate started as a calm rational event and has followed down the slippery slope. I would for the sake of maintaining peace in your hearts taking what has become an arguement no further. Both of you in your fervent writtings have as much implied losing the spirit of understanding that you were initially attempting to propigate. This certainly doesn't help you maintain your hearts inline with Christ's desire for peace for all his followers. Though any other questions that persue truth and understanding would be excellent=)
Posts: 9 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
